If the 2008 Democratic Presidential Candidate publicly supports nuclear power....

I would:

of course it would depend on the details, if they're just pushing a special interest for campaign checks vs have a real energy plan that includes Nuclear (which I think a real plan must do) then of course I would support them. It can't be just about nuke power it has to be a comprehensive plan.

nobody (candidate, or DU-er, or otherwise) advocates a "nuclear-only" policy.

However, I sometimes propose "all-nuclear" scenarios for various reasons.

a) it makes math simple for estimations

b) it clarifies thinking via "limiting cases" (I've done the same kind of exercise with all-wind or all-solar, etc)

c) nuclear power is the only carbon-free energy source that has no intermittency issues accompanying it. (except geothermal and hydro, which are geographically limited. And hydro is mostly tapped out. There's little room for additional growth). So, I can propose an "all-nuclear" scenario which requires no terawatt-hour storage systems, or mass-redundancies, for load balancing. I cannot propose such a solution with, say, wind, solar, tidal, etc. That isn't to say a system involving mass storage and redundancy is inconceivable, but proposing a solution that doesn't require it has it's attractions.

I think I am the only person who proposes "all-nuclear" concepts with any regularity, although I first got the idea from a long-lost remark by NNadir.

But I don't think "all-nuke" is a necessity. I just think it's feasible, and has certain attractions.

didn't mean to imply someone was advocating nuke only, just wanted to clarify my vote and position but I guess it's a pretty obvious thing to say that it has to be part of a comprehensive plan.

:popcorn:

--p!

a candidate who came out directly pro-nuke would be "eaten alive."

I suspect you are right. But I thought I would attempt to quantify the vote-loss consequences with yet another unscientific poll.

My guess is that the results of this poll will actually be skewed "pro-nuke," as compared to the general voting population. Most people are steeped in the accepted wisdom that nukes are undesirable, and that better options exist.

The candidate would be eaten alive, but the "eaters" would be primarily the anti-nuclearist environmentalists -- the left's "fashion tribes". The rank-and-file are not committed; the older ones remember the anti-nuke protests as a kind of last radical fling before the stark minimalism of Reaganomics came in. The idea that being a leftist requires a certain lifestyle is a mirror of the right's culture war idea. There is a huge chunk of the anti-nuclearist movement involved with it. But the grassroots? They want whatever will work for them, and the hot issue is going to be over control, people vs. corporate. With corporate control over renewable energy at this point being nearly total, the modern issue will not resemble its predecessor from the 1970s.

If I were any of the candidates, I would stay away from nuclear energy until after I took my hand off the Bible in January 2009. The anti-nuclear candidates should be especially wary, because it is no longer the reliable ideology-defining issue it was 30 years ago. There are many anti-nuke Republicans and pro-nuke Democrats, and the Republicans are already using it as a wedge issue against John Edwards.

One of the slips and slip-ups by the GOP during Gore's testimony before the Senate this past March was their inept attempt to pull Gore into taking a position on nuclear energy. Gore proved to be the better man (as usual), and sidestepped the issue. The links to the video were posted by Bananas as proof of Gore's anti-nuke beliefs. Although I do not like to speak for Gore, I do think that he's been getting Republican AND rad-left pressure about nuclear energy. The GOP wants to split the Democrats, and it's a turf war in the eyes of the Naderite left. And some lefties still hate Gore from 2000 and want to prove themselves right.

Gore does make a good point about proliferation, and we should perhaps use this as a way to cause more defections from the Right, especially the "hard-headed realists" and Tom Clancy readers. Not quite an energy issue, but the realpolitik aspects that Bush prefers to ignore will give us the opportunity to make further inroads in Republican territory.

As for your poll ...

... it will probably be moderately skewed pro-nuclear until the "activists" take notice of it; then there will be a repeat of the last one. It is interesting, though, that they only managed to marshall a small antinuclear plurality in spite of their efforts on at least three systems. That in itself is probably the most significant result of your polls. Nuke-o-phobia is losing cachet, and is mainly a relic of the 1970s.

--p!

:nuke: :evilgrin: :nuke:

:puke:

To be honest, I am looking for some reprocessing vision. The best the French could do was to build a plant on the windiest point of the Normandy peninsula so that they could routinely vent some radioactive gas to be carried away. The American plan is to put it a reprocessing plant in Appalachian Ohio. Cough, cough.

I feel like I am watching "Silkwood" agin, when Kerr McGee built their plant where the ignorant folk couldn't figure out what they were doing 'cause they never studied chemistry, and the rest of the country didn't give a damn because they were white trash.

Some leadership from the nuclear industry.

You sound a lot like him.

In fact, you sound exactly like him.

He spent all of 1978 predicting 100% of the world would be solar powered by the year 2000, the year that he ran for President of the United States on the platform that consisted wholly of the mantra, "The Democrats Suck."

That same year, he predicted that if all the nuclear power plants in the US weren't shut in 5 years, there would be a civil war.

Earlier in the day, we learned from you that 2020 is 2009.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=105580&mesg_id=105912

We also learned that soothsaying is the same as producing in that same post.

It's hardly a stretch to learn that you spent all of the year 2000 announcing that Bush was the same as Gore.

It's pretty much consistent with your view of reality.

Any man or woman who assumes the Presidency in 2009 will fail to address climate change without nuclear power. That's as obvious as making the statement that chalk is not cheese and Bush is not Gore.

Nuclear power will still be the world's largest climate change gas free form of energy in 2009, 2013 and 2014. I may not live that long, but if I do, I'll still be listening to you muttering excuses and making predictions about some magical Godot future that never actually arrives.

You of course, couldn't care less whether climate change is addressed. You are spectacularly uninterested in dangerous fossil fuel waste, which is why you couldn't care less about the use of dangerous fossil fuels and the release of dangerous fossil fuel waste in my state as is evidenced by your post here referenced.

I'm pro-nuclear if it's done right.

I would be skeptical of any pro- or anti-nuke stance
that can fit in a sound bite.