Keystone Pipeline

[bilby]

Ah, yes, we mustn't forget the lessons of Chernobyl, which are 'never allow the Soviet Union to design and operate nuclear reactors'; and 'Hey look, the effects of a massive leak are nothing like as bad as Greenpeace said they would be'.

The health effects across Europe from Chernobyl are serious; but they are still far less than the health effects across Europe from burning coal. Nuclear power isn't 100% safe, but it shouldn't need to be - it is far safer than the main alternative, which should be all that matters. That it isn't all that matters is proof only that propaganda is very effective, and that humans are not well equipped to judge risk.

One would think that the proper disposal of the spent uranium matters as well. That omission does buttress your point that propaganda is very effective.

What makes you think that my comments omit that part of the issue? Safe reprocessing and disposal of nuclear waste is not technically difficult, the only major problems with it are political.

 

[dx713]

One would think that the proper disposal of the spent uranium matters as well. That omission does buttress your point that propaganda is very effective.

What makes you think that my comments omit that part of the issue? Safe reprocessing and disposal of nuclear waste is not technically difficult, the only major problems with it are political.

Yeah, but Chrenobyl did deal a political blow to nuclear energy.
When the accident highlighted the amount of lying and ridiculous condescending lack of transparency in the nuclear electric production and government oversight of the European country using the most of it (France), it made it very difficult for people afterwards to trust any political decision on the subject.

 

[arkirk]

Is this how YOU would be without oil? This cartoon demonstrates YOUR vision for our ultimate future. In case you hadn't noticed, the management of information is becoming less and less energy intense. You pretend to have faith in man's ingenuity, but faced with a genuine environmental problem, you retreat into your own version of the stone age. We need to advance in our science and technology and also our social organization....things you are unalterably opposed to...just stick with coal and oil and the kind of modern the model T gave us....for Ford's sake, stop dragging your feet and get with the program!

You have an impossible vision of the future. The reality of what you envision is the cartoon.

- - - Updated - - -

Most every damable river is already dammed--and dams are far from green when it comes to the ecology of the river and sometimes the ocean beyond. (Species like trout that spawn in fresh water but live in the ocean.)

Is it any better if they spawn in oil and heavy metal polluted rivers? Not really. I do agree that things are already pretty heavily dammed. Actually in our state, some dams are being REMOVED. Dams trap solids in river flows and this destroys things like river deltas, beaches, coastal wetlands, etc. Just the same, Oldman's ideas at least don't involve more petrochemical and I assume nuclear pollution that are a byproduct of YOUR THINKING.

Except the nuclear pollution you envision doesn't happen. We have only one reasonable example of nuclear pollution: Fukushima. For the power that has come from reactors that's an awfully small impact.

Ever heard of FUKUSHIMA OR CHERNOBYL? Where have you been? In a cave?

 

[Axulus]

You have an impossible vision of the future. The reality of what you envision is the cartoon.

- - - Updated - - -

Most every damable river is already dammed--and dams are far from green when it comes to the ecology of the river and sometimes the ocean beyond. (Species like trout that spawn in fresh water but live in the ocean.)

Is it any better if they spawn in oil and heavy metal polluted rivers? Not really. I do agree that things are already pretty heavily dammed. Actually in our state, some dams are being REMOVED. Dams trap solids in river flows and this destroys things like river deltas, beaches, coastal wetlands, etc. Just the same, Oldman's ideas at least don't involve more petrochemical and I assume nuclear pollution that are a byproduct of YOUR THINKING.

Except the nuclear pollution you envision doesn't happen. We have only one reasonable example of nuclear pollution: Fukushima. For the power that has come from reactors that's an awfully small impact.

Ever heard of FUKUSHIMA OR CHERNOBYL? Where have you been? In a cave?

You think using really big and scary font will change the FACTS?

Japan's radiation disaster toll: none dead, none sick

You should have, because recent authoritative reports have reached a remarkable conclusion about a supposedly "deadly" disaster. No one died, nor is likely to die, according to the most comprehensive assessments since the Fukushima nuclear plant was hit by a massive earthquake and tsunami in March 2011.

The accident competed for media space with the deaths of nearly 20,000 people in the magnitude 9.0 quake – 1000 times worse than the Christchurch quake – and tsunami, which wholly or partly destroyed more than a million buildings.

The nuclear workers were the living dead, we were told; hundreds of thousands would die if the plant exploded; even if that didn't happen, affected areas would be uninhabitable and residents' health would suffer for generations.

Instead, two independent international reports conclude that radiative material released from Fukushima's four damaged reactors, three of which melted down, has had negligible health impacts.

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/ja...-toll-none-dead-none-sick-20130604-2nomz.html

 

[ronburgundy]

Much of the political opposition to Nuclear Power is akin to people too afraid of flying but drive everyday. IOW it is rooted in massive ignorance and the fact that isolated dramatic events have a much bigger impact on how people think, than tiny but constant events that cumulatively are far more important and that rationally they should give more weight.

However, Nuclear Power also faces a far more rational source resistance, which is that people care far more about themselves and their loved ones than complete strangers. The way this relates is that the harms of Fossil Fuels (and "green" energy) are more dispersed across the globe and population and/or felt more by people who choose to directly benefit from the production of these fuels (solar panel installers, coal miners, etc..).
Way more people die than with Nuclear, but those at risk include all 6 billion people. With Nuclear Power, those at risk is largely limited to those who live near the plant. It isn't just the absolute level of risk that matters, but the perceived relative risk. The plants have to go somewhere and no on wants to take on the higher relative risk while everyone else gets just as much benefit. Even if a person next to a nuclear plant is more likely to die from fossil fuel use, that latter risk is shared by everyone else, so they do not object to it as much.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Much of the political opposition to Nuclear Power is akin to people too afraid of flying but drive everyday. IOW it is rooted in massive ignorance and the fact that isolated dramatic events have a much bigger impact on how people think, than tiny but constant events that cumulatively are far more important and that rationally they should give more weight.

However, Nuclear Power also faces a far more rational source resistance, which is that people care far more about themselves and their loved ones than complete strangers. The way this relates is that the harms of Fossil Fuels (and "green" energy) are more dispersed across the globe and population and/or felt more by people who choose to directly benefit from the production of these fuels (solar panel installers, coal miners, etc..).
Way more people die than with Nuclear, but those at risk include all 6 billion people. With Nuclear Power, those at risk is largely limited to those who live near the plant. It isn't just the absolute level of risk that matters, but the perceived relative risk. The plants have to go somewhere and no on wants to take on the higher relative risk while everyone else gets just as much benefit. Even if a person next to a nuclear plant is more likely to die from fossil fuel use, that latter risk is shared by everyone else, so they do not object to it as much.

I've never thought of it that way so I'd have to disagree. My feelings toward nuclear are that it is much more difficult to overcome an accident, to clean it up. Chernobyl demonstrates that quite well.

 

[Axulus]

Much of the political opposition to Nuclear Power is akin to people too afraid of flying but drive everyday. IOW it is rooted in massive ignorance and the fact that isolated dramatic events have a much bigger impact on how people think, than tiny but constant events that cumulatively are far more important and that rationally they should give more weight.

However, Nuclear Power also faces a far more rational source resistance, which is that people care far more about themselves and their loved ones than complete strangers. The way this relates is that the harms of Fossil Fuels (and "green" energy) are more dispersed across the globe and population and/or felt more by people who choose to directly benefit from the production of these fuels (solar panel installers, coal miners, etc..).
Way more people die than with Nuclear, but those at risk include all 6 billion people. With Nuclear Power, those at risk is largely limited to those who live near the plant. It isn't just the absolute level of risk that matters, but the perceived relative risk. The plants have to go somewhere and no on wants to take on the higher relative risk while everyone else gets just as much benefit. Even if a person next to a nuclear plant is more likely to die from fossil fuel use, that latter risk is shared by everyone else, so they do not object to it as much.

I've never thought of it that way so I'd have to disagree. My feelings toward nuclear are that it is much more difficult to overcome an accident, to clean it up. Chernobyl demonstrates that quite well.

And Fukushima is a counterexample to Chernobyl. We've moved on from the significant issues involved with the old designs and the inherent problems caused by Soviet style planned economies.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

And Fukushima is a counterexample to Chernobyl. We've moved on from the significant issues involved with the old designs and the inherent problems caused by Soviet style planned economies.

Not if Comrade Obama gets his way.

Obama

 

[ksen]

*komrade

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You have an impossible vision of the future. The reality of what you envision is the cartoon.

- - - Updated - - -

Most every damable river is already dammed--and dams are far from green when it comes to the ecology of the river and sometimes the ocean beyond. (Species like trout that spawn in fresh water but live in the ocean.)

Is it any better if they spawn in oil and heavy metal polluted rivers? Not really. I do agree that things are already pretty heavily dammed. Actually in our state, some dams are being REMOVED. Dams trap solids in river flows and this destroys things like river deltas, beaches, coastal wetlands, etc. Just the same, Oldman's ideas at least don't involve more petrochemical and I assume nuclear pollution that are a byproduct of YOUR THINKING.

Except the nuclear pollution you envision doesn't happen. We have only one reasonable example of nuclear pollution: Fukushima. For the power that has come from reactors that's an awfully small impact.

Ever heard of FUKUSHIMA OR CHERNOBYL? Where have you been? In a cave?

Try reading rather than ranting.

Note that "Fukushima" is word #18 of what you were quoting.

I don't count Chernobyl because that was the result of a maniac basically blowing up the reactor, not a normal accident. (He was trying to prove that the reactor was safe even when taken into an extreme realm that it never should have been in in the first place. The already inadequate safeties were mostly disabled and they didn't hit the SCRAM button until the last instant--at which point a horrible design decision intervened and took the reactor prompt critical.)

- - - Updated - - -

I've never thought of it that way so I'd have to disagree. My feelings toward nuclear are that it is much more difficult to overcome an accident, to clean it up. Chernobyl demonstrates that quite well.

And we don't even try to clean up the crap that goes up the smokestack of a coal plant.

 

[arkirk]

One would think that the proper disposal of the spent uranium matters as well. That omission does buttress your point that propaganda is very effective.

What makes you think that my comments omit that part of the issue? Safe reprocessing and disposal of nuclear waste is not technically difficult, the only major problems with it are political.

The folks at Fukushima really need to hear from you. With your special knowledge, you just might save their ass.
There's nothing like a little optimism to make people temporarily feel better.

 

[bilby]

What makes you think that my comments omit that part of the issue? Safe reprocessing and disposal of nuclear waste is not technically difficult, the only major problems with it are political.

The folks at Fukushima really need to hear from you. With your special knowledge, you just might save their ass.
There's nothing like a little optimism to make people temporarily feel better.

The issue at Fukushima is not one of waste disposal; It is one of cleaning up after a magnitude 9.0 earthquake and a huge Tsunami. And nobody's ass is on the line at Fukushima; the death and injury toll currently stands at zero radiation injuries or deaths. It is unlikely to rise. But you don't actually care about reality; you want it to be a life-threatening disaster so you can say 'I told you so', but it's not. It is a costly engineering disaster, but it isn't life threatening no matter how much you insist that it should be.

Your disregard for facts in this discussion is sad and tiresome.

 

[arkirk]

The folks at Fukushima really need to hear from you. With your special knowledge, you just might save their ass.
There's nothing like a little optimism to make people temporarily feel better.

The issue at Fukushima is not one of waste disposal; It is one of cleaning up after a magnitude 9.0 earthquake and a huge Tsunami. And nobody's ass is on the line at Fukushima; the death and injury toll currently stands at zero radiation injuries or deaths. It is unlikely to rise. But you don't actually care about reality; you want it to be a life-threatening disaster so you can say 'I told you so', but it's not. It is a costly engineering disaster, but it isn't life threatening no matter how much you insist that it should be.

Your disregard for facts in this discussion is sad and tiresome.

Yes indeed you are tiresome and it makes me sad to realize how many people think like you.

So many people think we can tear apart ecosystems and put them back together again. Over a period of about ten years, I followed high level nuclear waste processing and disposal schemes closely and found that scheme after scheme failed at some level. We actually have a growing understanding of a lot of things that don't work. We also know that there are people in this world out to make their fortune on very ill advised things like the Keystone Pipeline (what the OP was about). No technology is without its problems but some are demonstrably less problematic than others. The real problem is allowing these problem technologies which could have some benefits to our society to be over-applied.

Tar sans oil extraction is actually a series of very problematic technologies all strung together. It is actually not just a strip mining operation. It also is a chemical extraction operation that leaves extremely toxic residues at or very near the mine site. It consumes large volumes of water which are polluted then discharged on the surface in ponds that are many square miles in extent. From there, this extra low grade crude is loaded on trains that might explode about anywhere. The options considered for powering the steam and chemical extraction process at the mine site are petrochemical fuel or nuclear reactors. Trans Canada cannot get their pipeline to their west coast because of environmental problems. So this problem is proposed to be solved by shipping it through a pipeline to the gulf coast of the U.S, We have already experienced pipeline failures with Tar Sands Crude and it is actually far worse than other crudes to try to clean up. The acid residues in this crude are extremely corrosive and there are there because acids are used in the extraction process. Because of this acidity large amounts of heavy metals remain in this oil. All of these things militate against long term use of pipelines or trains to haul this shit.

If you have ever lived in a refinery town and I have lived in four of them, you know that the separation and fractioning processes produce large amounts of very toxic waste that requires disposal. There is always a component of water pollution in these towns and in whatever receiving water that might be nearby. The reasons for denying the Keystone pipeline are many. Its problems are many. It is actually in our interest and cheaper to work on reducing our dependence on these very flawed petrochemical technologies. They are already over-applied and there is a lot of opportunity in replacing them with less toxic, less dangerous and less environmentally disruptive technologies. We really don't need to just Rambo everything through and ignore safety. That is what the Keystone people want to do. When their illustrious spokesmen include people like Boener and McConnel, that alone should be sufficient warning that this project is not in the interest of the common people of this country and a pure detriment to countries threatened by global warming.

 

[Axulus]

The issue at Fukushima is not one of waste disposal; It is one of cleaning up after a magnitude 9.0 earthquake and a huge Tsunami. And nobody's ass is on the line at Fukushima; the death and injury toll currently stands at zero radiation injuries or deaths. It is unlikely to rise. But you don't actually care about reality; you want it to be a life-threatening disaster so you can say 'I told you so', but it's not. It is a costly engineering disaster, but it isn't life threatening no matter how much you insist that it should be.

Your disregard for facts in this discussion is sad and tiresome.

Yes indeed you are tiresome and it makes me sad to realize how many people think like you.

So many people think we can tear apart ecosystems and put them back together again. Over a period of about ten years, I followed high level nuclear waste processing and disposal schemes closely and found that scheme after scheme failed at some level. We actually have a growing understanding of a lot of things that don't work. We also know that there are people in this world out to make their fortune on very ill advised things like the Keystone Pipeline (what the OP was about). No technology is without its problems but some are demonstrably less problematic than others. The real problem is allowing these problem technologies which could have some benefits to our society are over-applied.

Tar sans oil extraction is actually a series of very problematic technologies all strung together. It is actually not just a strip mining operation. It also is a chemical extraction operation that leaves extremely toxic residues at or very near the mine site. It consumes large volumes of water which are polluted then discharged on the surface in ponds that are man square miles in extent. From there, this extra low grade crude is loaded on trains that might explode about anywhere. The options considered for powering the steam and chemical extraction process at the mine site are petrochemical fuel or nuclear reactors. Trans Canada cannot get their pipeline to their west coast because of environmental problems. So this problem is proposed to be solved by shipping it through a pipeline to the gulf coast of the U.S, We have already experienced pipeline failures with Tar Sands Crude and it is actually far worse than other crudes to try to clean up. The acid residues in this crude are extremely corrosive and there are because of its acidity large amounts of heavy metals in this oil. All of these things militate against long term use of pipelines or trains to haul this shit.

If you have ever lived in a refinery town and I have lived in four of them, you know that the separation and fractioning processes produce large amounts of very toxic waste that requires disposal. There is always a component of water pollution in these towns and in whatever receiving water that might be nearby. The reasons for denying the Keystone pipeline are many. Its problems are many. It is actually in our interest and cheaper to work on reducing our dependence on these very flawed petrochemical technologies. They are already over-applied and there is a lot of opportunity in replacing them with less toxic, less dangerous and less environmentally disruptive technologies. We really don't need to just Rambo everything through and ignore safety. That is what the Keystone people want to do. When their illustrious spokesmen include people like Boener and McConnel, that alone should be sufficient warning that this project is not in the interest of the common people of this country.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, the following is going on:

 

[arkirk]

Thanks Axulus for all the charts that have NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.

I find the air quality graph particularly ridiculous. Where as this air, the graph represents? Certainly it wasn't in Richmond CA. or in West Virginia.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What makes you think that my comments omit that part of the issue? Safe reprocessing and disposal of nuclear waste is not technically difficult, the only major problems with it are political.

The folks at Fukushima really need to hear from you. With your special knowledge, you just might save their ass.
There's nothing like a little optimism to make people temporarily feel better.

Fukushima was not engaged in either the reprocessing or disposal of nuclear waste. You can't very well fail at a task you weren't even doing in the first place.

What happened to Fukushima was the destruction of the cooling systems and their backups and the still-hot (physical sense) fuel overheated and breached containment. The still-hot fuel is always stored on site because of the risks of moving something that needs cooling. The usual procedure is to leave it in a water pool on site for a few years.

- - - Updated - - -

The issue at Fukushima is not one of waste disposal; It is one of cleaning up after a magnitude 9.0 earthquake and a huge Tsunami. And nobody's ass is on the line at Fukushima; the death and injury toll currently stands at zero radiation injuries or deaths. It is unlikely to rise. But you don't actually care about reality; you want it to be a life-threatening disaster so you can say 'I told you so', but it's not. It is a costly engineering disaster, but it isn't life threatening no matter how much you insist that it should be.

Your disregard for facts in this discussion is sad and tiresome.

Yes indeed you are tiresome and it makes me sad to realize how many people think like you.

So many people think we can tear apart ecosystems and put them back together again. Over a period of about ten years, I followed high level nuclear waste processing and disposal schemes closely and found that scheme after scheme failed at some level. We actually have a growing understanding of a lot of things that don't work. We also know that there are people in this world out to make their fortune on very ill advised things like the Keystone Pipeline (what the OP was about). No technology is without its problems but some are demonstrably less problematic than others. The real problem is allowing these problem technologies which could have some benefits to our society to be over-applied.

Tar sans oil extraction is actually a series of very problematic technologies all strung together. It is actually not just a strip mining operation. It also is a chemical extraction operation that leaves extremely toxic residues at or very near the mine site. It consumes large volumes of water which are polluted then discharged on the surface in ponds that are many square miles in extent. From there, this extra low grade crude is loaded on trains that might explode about anywhere. The options considered for powering the steam and chemical extraction process at the mine site are petrochemical fuel or nuclear reactors. Trans Canada cannot get their pipeline to their west coast because of environmental problems. So this problem is proposed to be solved by shipping it through a pipeline to the gulf coast of the U.S, We have already experienced pipeline failures with Tar Sands Crude and it is actually far worse than other crudes to try to clean up. The acid residues in this crude are extremely corrosive and there are there because acids are used in the extraction process. Because of this acidity large amounts of heavy metals remain in this oil. All of these things militate against long term use of pipelines or trains to haul this shit.

If you have ever lived in a refinery town and I have lived in four of them, you know that the separation and fractioning processes produce large amounts of very toxic waste that requires disposal. There is always a component of water pollution in these towns and in whatever receiving water that might be nearby. The reasons for denying the Keystone pipeline are many. Its problems are many. It is actually in our interest and cheaper to work on reducing our dependence on these very flawed petrochemical technologies. They are already over-applied and there is a lot of opportunity in replacing them with less toxic, less dangerous and less environmentally disruptive technologies. We really don't need to just Rambo everything through and ignore safety. That is what the Keystone people want to do. When their illustrious spokesmen include people like Boener and McConnel, that alone should be sufficient warning that this project is not in the interest of the common people of this country and a pure detriment to countries threatened by global warming.

You're not addressing the issue of the sub-thread: Fukushima, but rather presenting a general green rant.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Thanks Axulus for all the charts that have NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.

I find the air quality graph particularly ridiculous. Where as this air, the graph represents? Certainly it wasn't in Richmond CA. or in West Virginia.

Not relevant? He's showing that the pollution is going way down. That's quite relevant to what you're talking about.

 

[Derec]

So many people think we can tear apart ecosystems and put them back together again.

Well it's inevitable in the kind of society we have. Unless you want to go back to that cave ...

Over a period of about ten years, I followed high level nuclear waste processing and disposal schemes closely and found that scheme after scheme failed at some level.

They tend to fail on politics, not technology.

We actually have a growing understanding of a lot of things that don't work. We also know that there are people in this world out to make their fortune on very ill advised things like the Keystone Pipeline (what the OP was about). No technology is without its problems but some are demonstrably less problematic than others. The real problem is allowing these problem technologies which could have some benefits to our society to be over-applied.

You have key to show that Keystone XL is ill-advised.

Tar sans oil extraction is actually a series of very problematic technologies all strung together. It is actually not just a strip mining operation. It also is a chemical extraction operation that leaves extremely toxic residues at or very near the mine site. It consumes large volumes of water which are polluted then discharged on the surface in ponds that are many square miles in extent. From there, this extra low grade crude is loaded on trains that might explode about anywhere. The options considered for powering the steam and chemical extraction process at the mine site are petrochemical fuel or nuclear reactors.

Other forms of energy also involve many steps and have toxic byproducts. Solar cell production for example involves quite nasty chemicals.

Trans Canada cannot get their pipeline to their west coast because of environmental problems.

Not because of any actual environmental problems, but because of political problems, including opposition by Canadian Indian tribes (or Siberian-Canadians to be mock politically correct).

So this problem is proposed to be solved by shipping it through a pipeline to the gulf coast of the U.S, We have already experienced pipeline failures with Tar Sands Crude and it is actually far worse than other crudes to try to clean up. The acid residues in this crude are extremely corrosive and there are there because acids are used in the extraction process. Because of this acidity large amounts of heavy metals remain in this oil.

Citation needed for all those claims. Specifically the question of heavy metal content vs. other forms of oil, especially heavy oil. I asked about that repeatedly and have received no response from you.

All of these things militate against long term use of pipelines or trains to haul this shit.

Are you volunteering to haul that stuff by wheel-barrow then?

If you have ever lived in a refinery town and I have lived in four of them, you know that the separation and fractioning processes produce large amounts of very toxic waste that requires disposal.

I have lived in a refinery town most of my childhood actually. And of course waste requires disposal. But refineries are necessary.

There is always a component of water pollution in these towns and in whatever receiving water that might be nearby. The reasons for denying the Keystone pipeline are many. Its problems are many. It is actually in our interest and cheaper to work on reducing our dependence on these very flawed petrochemical technologies.

We can work on reducing our dependence on oil without rejecting Keystone XL. The fact is that there isn't enough conventional oil to meet global demand.

They are already over-applied and there is a lot of opportunity in replacing them with less toxic, less dangerous and less environmentally disruptive technologies. We really don't need to just Rambo everything through and ignore safety. That is what the Keystone people want to do. When their illustrious spokesmen include people like Boener and McConnel, that alone should be sufficient warning that this project is not in the interest of the common people of this country and a pure detriment to countries threatened by global warming.

Things like electric cars will take decades to fully penetrate the market. In the meantime we will still need oil, including oil sands, shales, ultra-deep water etc.
And why are Bohner and McConnell any less respectable as supporters of the pipeline than Pelosi or Reid are as opponents?

 

[Derec]

So your idea is that the only way we can live is to hack up the surface of the earth, pollute our AIR and WATER and then go back and TRY TO RECLAIM THE LAND from the pollution?

Not the "entire surface of the Earth", but a very small fraction. That was the point of the map I included in my post. Please try to keep up.
By the way, that applies even in a post-oil world. Electric cars need lithium for batteries, and rare earth metals for permanent magnets in the motor and of course, large quantities of copper for all the windings in the motor and the wiring throughout. Those metals will have to be mined of course. And then you have to generate electricity by a combination of different methods, all of which involve disturbing the natural world to some degree.

You treat natural ecosystems like they are something we can remove and replace at will.

As opposed to treating them as some sort of sacred extension of the goddess Gaya in which case none of them must be touched by dirty unnatural technology and it's back to the cave with you. Do you realize how much disturbance to the "natural ecosystems" was necessary to enable you to argue on the internet?

You do not recognize the reality of ecological services over which we have little control at all. You refuse to recognize the progressive pollution of our industrial society and the many natural cycles we are interrupting with our voracious appetite for sub surface minerals.

Environmental damage should be taken into account and minimized as much as feasible, sure. But pearl-clutching because an open pit oil sands mine that covers a vanishingly tiny portion of Canadian boreal forest is not pretty is not terribly useful.

You fail to realize that when we move petroleum and heavy metals to the surface, it interferes with the biotic potential of the surface of the earth, with oligodynamic poisoning.

I suggest you don't drink (or eat depending on API gravity) crude oil then.
In Germany there was a slogan parodying know-nothing nuclear power opponents with words "Atomkraft? Nein danke! Mein Strom kommt eh aus der Steckdose." ("Nuclear power? No thanks! My electricity comes from the wall outlet anyway.")
You are similar. Assuming you drive a car (or take a taxi or a bus) one could paraphrase it as "Move petroleum to surface? No thanks. My gasoline comes from the gas station pump anyway."

You demonstrate a primative lack of comprehension of the significance of our pollution of OUR ENVIRONMENT. Strip mines are actually very difficult andalmost impossible to reclaim. How do you deal with 130 sq. mi. of petrochemical sludge ponds? Your thinking about the environment is narrow and the product of an inadequate education.

As other posters have shown, our pollution levels have been going down significantly in recent decades. And difficult is not impossible and such reclamations have already been done.

 

[ronburgundy]

Much of the political opposition to Nuclear Power is akin to people too afraid of flying but drive everyday. IOW it is rooted in massive ignorance and the fact that isolated dramatic events have a much bigger impact on how people think, than tiny but constant events that cumulatively are far more important and that rationally they should give more weight.

However, Nuclear Power also faces a far more rational source resistance, which is that people care far more about themselves and their loved ones than complete strangers. The way this relates is that the harms of Fossil Fuels (and "green" energy) are more dispersed across the globe and population and/or felt more by people who choose to directly benefit from the production of these fuels (solar panel installers, coal miners, etc..).
Way more people die than with Nuclear fossil fuels (sorry, major typo), but those at risk include all 6 billion people. With Nuclear Power, those at risk is largely limited to those who live near the plant. It isn't just the absolute level of risk that matters, but the perceived relative risk. The plants have to go somewhere and no on wants to take on the higher relative risk while everyone else gets just as much benefit. Even if a person next to a nuclear plant is more likely to die from fossil fuel use, that latter risk is shared by everyone else, so they do not object to it as much.

I've never thought of it that way so I'd have to disagree. My feelings toward nuclear are that it is much more difficult to overcome an accident, to clean it up. Chernobyl demonstrates that quite well.

You are thinking of it almost exactly like I described. Fossil fuels objectively do, have, and will cause way more harm that is "harder to overcome" and to "clean up". But your objectively wrong statement ignores all this harm because its gradual and dispersed globally every millisecond in normal use rather than concentrated in occasional dramatic "accidents". Chernobyl not only was a extreme case requiring gross neglect and outdated methods to cause that level of harm, but even Chernobyl is nothing in its impact compared to even a fraction of the fossil fuels used since that accident.