# President Biden's Infrastructure Plans

#### Trausti

##### Deleted
Manafort providing polling data to Kremlin linked Ukrainians.
Shock! Horror! Could you image if Don, Jr., had a $job on the board a Ukrainian energy conglomerate? Shock! Horror! Hunter Biden (among others) was given a comfy window dressing position at Burisma that required almost no work, in order to provide a better image to the company. Manafort gave Ukrainians linked to the Kremlin polling data for Trump's campaign. One of these things furthers the narrative of passive Russian involvement in the US Election to benefit Trump. The other, unethical (but generally harmless) cushy job position due to Dad's position that has nothing to do with the 2020 election. Good grief. So it was Ukrainian collusion, not Russian collusion? Some one call Mueller, ASAP! #### Patooka ##### Veteran Member It's amazing how so many Trumpers still believe that Manafort, Flynn etc pled guilty over nothing more than a "hoax". And when I say amazing I mean pathetically predictable. Manafort pled guilty to bank fraud. Flynn plead guilty to false statements to the FBI during his interview - and the DOJ moved to dismiss. The only purpose of the Flynn interview was a perjury trap, as the FBI already had his telephone transcript and never charged him under the Logan Act. Ya really to got stop watching MSNBC. I need to start watching MSNBC first for me to stop. I don't hold a lot of US media outlets in high regards, but C-Span is a pretty reliable primary source: But you keep holding onto that Russian hoax fantasy. However, I do seem to recall you specifically wanting to crucify Hitlery and Obongo over much, much weaker claims vis a vis Benghazi. By the way, a Republican controlled senate voted unanimously twice that there was collusion as well, so there's that. #### ZiprHead ##### Loony Running The Asylum Staff member It's amazing how so many Trumpers still believe that Manafort, Flynn etc pled guilty over nothing more than a "hoax". And when I say amazing I mean pathetically predictable. Manafort pled guilty to bank fraud. Flynn plead guilty to false statements to the FBI during his interview - and the DOJ moved to dismiss. The only purpose of the Flynn interview was a perjury trap, as the FBI already had his telephone transcript and never charged him under the Logan Act. Ya really to got stop watching MSNBC. There's no such thing as a perjury trap. Hah! I bow to your superior argument. #### Keith&Co. ##### Contributor It's amazing how so many Trumpers still believe that Manafort, Flynn etc pled guilty over nothing more than a "hoax". And when I say amazing I mean pathetically predictable. Manafort pled guilty to bank fraud. Flynn plead guilty to false statements to the FBI during his interview - and the DOJ moved to dismiss. The only purpose of the Flynn interview was a perjury trap, as the FBI already had his telephone transcript and never charged him under the Logan Act. Ya really to got stop watching MSNBC. There's no such thing as a perjury trap. Hah! I bow to your superior argument. How would a perjury 'trap' even work? You ask a question, or invite a statement, and the witness is forced, smply forced to state something he or she knows to be untrue? I mean, if someone, let's call him Giuliani, were to talk utter shit to the media, and were then given the opportunity to make the same statement under oath, one would expect a total shitweasel to stick to the story he told the public, but that's still up to him and his conscience consistency desire to avoid charges. Even if it's one of those trick qwestions like, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" your attorney should grab the mic and ask the feds to rephrase the question. But if they din't, that's not even perjury if you can say 'i thought the question was asking...' So, how does it work? #### Loren Pechtel ##### Super Moderator Staff member It's amazing how so many Trumpers still believe that Manafort, Flynn etc pled guilty over nothing more than a "hoax". And when I say amazing I mean pathetically predictable. Manafort pled guilty to bank fraud. Flynn plead guilty to false statements to the FBI during his interview - and the DOJ moved to dismiss. The only purpose of the Flynn interview was a perjury trap, as the FBI already had his telephone transcript and never charged him under the Logan Act. Ya really to got stop watching MSNBC. If he lied to the FBI he had a reason--there must have been other wrongdoing. #### lpetrich ##### Contributor #### lpetrich ##### Contributor Manchin outlines BBB deal requirements He wants it stripped down to these three issues: climate change, prescription drug prices and deficit reduction. • His comments at the closed-door dinner, hosted by the American Clean Power Association, the trade association for the renewable energy industry, are consistent with conversations Manchin has had with Senate colleagues. • In those informal talks, he's outlined a deal that includes roughly$500 billion for climate and $1 trillion in new revenue. • But the senator isn't indicating any support for universal preschool or any of the other care-economy proposals that were included in Biden's initial "human infrastructure" package. • And Manchin is insisting on reducing the deficit with at least half of the revenue from new corporate taxes, as well as the estimated savings from allowing Medicare to directly negotiate the cost of prescription drugs. ... • In February, White House officials discussed how to recast Biden’s social spending and climate plans into a deficit-reduction package, hoping to appeal to Manchin’s concerns about inflation, according to the Washington Post. • After the president mentioned lowering the deficit by$1 trillion during his State of the Union address March 1, Manchin indicated he was open to some additional spending.
• “If you do that, the revenue-producing [measures] would be taxes and drugs. The spending is going to be climate,” Manchin said during an interview with Politico.
So he likes renewable energy when it's the executives of renewable-energy companies.

#### lpetrich

##### Contributor
Biden Administration Drafting Order to Invoke Defense Production Act for Green Energy Storage Technology
THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION is drafting an executive order invoking the Defense Production Act to alleviate shortages of key minerals needed for the technology to store clean energy. The act, which would bolster the manufacturing capacity of electric vehicle producers in particular, indicates that the administration is open to using executive power to achieve progressive policy goals as Congress remains reluctant to pass key parts of his green energy agenda.

The order would declare that “ensuring robust, resilient, and sustainable domestic industrial base to meet the requirements of the clean energy economy is essential to our national security,” according to a draft of the document that remains in the “pre-decisional” phase. ,,, The order would specifically says “domestic mining, beneficiation, and value-added processing of strategic and critical materials from sustainable sources for the production of large capacity batteries for the automotive, e-mobility, and stationary storage sectors is essential to national defense.”

#### Jimmy Higgins

##### Contributor
Biden Administration Drafting Order to Invoke Defense Production Act for Green Energy Storage Technology
THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION is drafting an executive order invoking the Defense Production Act to alleviate shortages of key minerals needed for the technology to store clean energy. The act, which would bolster the manufacturing capacity of electric vehicle producers in particular, indicates that the administration is open to using executive power to achieve progressive policy goals as Congress remains reluctant to pass key parts of his green energy agenda.

The order would declare that “ensuring robust, resilient, and sustainable domestic industrial base to meet the requirements of the clean energy economy is essential to our national security,” according to a draft of the document that remains in the “pre-decisional” phase. ,,, The order would specifically says “domestic mining, beneficiation, and value-added processing of strategic and critical materials from sustainable sources for the production of large capacity batteries for the automotive, e-mobility, and stationary storage sectors is essential to national defense.”
Is that a middle finger to Native American property rights?

#### TV and credit cards

##### Veteran Member
Manchin outlines BBB deal requirements
He wants it stripped down to these three issues: climate change, prescription drug prices and deficit reduction.
• His comments at the closed-door dinner, hosted by the American Clean Power Association, the trade association for the renewable energy industry, are consistent with conversations Manchin has had with Senate colleagues.
• In those informal talks, he's outlined a deal that includes roughly $500 billion for climate and$1 trillion in new revenue.
• But the senator isn't indicating any support for universal preschool or any of the other care-economy proposals that were included in Biden's initial "human infrastructure" package.
• And Manchin is insisting on reducing the deficit with at least half of the revenue from new corporate taxes, as well as the estimated savings from allowing Medicare to directly negotiate the cost of prescription drugs.

...
• In February, White House officials discussed how to recast Biden’s social spending and climate plans into a deficit-reduction package, hoping to appeal to Manchin’s concerns about inflation, according to the Washington Post.
• After the president mentioned lowering the deficit by $1 trillion during his State of the Union address March 1, Manchin indicated he was open to some additional spending. • “If you do that, the revenue-producing [measures] would be taxes and drugs. The spending is going to be climate,” Manchin said during an interview with Politico. So he likes renewable energy when it's the executives of renewable-energy companies. From article: The bottom line: Any skinnier Build Back Better legislation still faces numerous hurdles. • They include agreement from Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) on the revenue side, and acceptance from progressives that$550 billion on energy and climate is the only deal they'll get.
Who says that’s “the only deal they’ll get”? These all sound like good progressive things Manchin is willing to vote for. Take it. Take it and carry on. This does not change one bit out position on further social infrastructure. Take it and keep the press on for Build Back Betterer.

#### lpetrich

##### Contributor
'Swallowing a toad': Progressives warm to Manchin's fossil fuel demands to clinch climate package - POLITICO - "Voters' frustration with high energy prices and the likelihood that Democrats will lose control of the House in November have made progressives more open to a deal."
“If [Manchin] wants some increase for short-term production for the broader package of $500 billion on renewables, I am open to that,” said Rep. Ro Khanna of California, a deputy whip in the Congressional Progressive Caucus. “It’s not ideal for the climate, but I am not comfortable with Americans paying 6, 7 bucks for gas.” ... “The reality is we don’t have the votes to do everything we want,” said Rep. Donald McEachin (D-Va.), a member of the House Climate Crisis Committee. “So compromise is called for. Is it the compromise I would like? No. But we have a saying in the Virginia legislature. Every now and again you have to swallow a toad. And this is swallowing a toad.” ... “If we are saying that in this moment we need to stimulate the production of fossil fuel, that has to be tied to a longer-term move to prevent this from happening again,” said Rep. Katie Porter (D-Calif.), deputy chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. “I am willing to compromise. I am willing to negotiate. Americans are feeling it at the pump.” ... For example, Khanna, Porter and other progressives have introduced legislation that would tax large oil companies for the huge profits they are reaping from surging crude prices, a policy they say would incentivize more drilling and bring down prices and resulting tax burden. Progressives including McEachin and Porter are also pushing to provide rebates or direct payments to consumers to help offset high gas prices, an idea backed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that could drive up fuel demand. “It is unfortunate we have to do that, but the time demands action and the American people are certainly deserving of action,” McEachin said. ... We don’t have a proposal on the table to respond to,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Jayapal acknowledged the current problem of high energy prices presents a “complicated situation” for liberals eager to accelerate climate action, but she suggested there are lines she won’t cross to help fossil fuels. “We are trying to do as much as we can to focus on the transition and really pushing that, and we don’t want to respond to random suggestions from people who are putting forward things that wouldn’t get the votes in the House,” Jayapal said. ... Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.) “I’ve been encouraged by Manchin saying he is broadly supportive of$550 billion in clean energy incentives, and generally speaking, anything we do to increase deployment of clean energy accelerates the transition away from dirty energy because clean energy is cheaper,” Casten said.

... Rep. Jared Huffman of California
“This is not a situation where we are just going to support anything because we want to see something passed,” Huffman said. “It’s a non-starter for me to say I will do a bunch of pro-fossil fuel things.”

... Rep. Mondaire Jones (D-N.Y.)
“I have always been of the mind that we should shoot for the moon, but work pragmatically to pass the best thing that can get through the Senate. And the discussions underway right now are consistent with a perspective the vast majority of Democrats in the House Democratic Caucus have,” Jones said.
Seems like a reasonable compromise. More oil development in exchange for advancing renewable energy development elsewhere, like for electricity generation.

#### Patooka

##### Veteran Member
Both. Would be wonderful if this could be a bipartisan issue.
If we could channel the amount of irony and hypocrisy in this statement, the US wouldn't need nuclear plants. Energy would be limitless.

#### bilby

##### Fair dinkum thinkum
Biden launches $6B effort to save distressed nuclear plants The program was funded through President Joe Biden’s$1 trillion infrastructure deal
He should put just as much effort into the construction of newer, safer plants.
It's doubtful that they can get much safer than "zero radiation deaths or injuries ever", which is the standard the old plants have set.

That we see people calling for safer designs, given the history of the current crop, tells you everything about the insanity of the anti nuclear lobby. Literally no level of safety will ever be safe enough for these idiots.

#### Jimmy Higgins

##### Contributor
Biden launches $6B effort to save distressed nuclear plants The program was funded through President Joe Biden’s$1 trillion infrastructure deal
He should put just as much effort into the construction of newer, safer plants.
Both. Would be wonderful if this could be a bipartisan issue.
It is! I bet if you went to any right-winger who hates wind energy (because it is carbon free, not because it isn't sustainable), whether they would support a nuclear plant in their county, the answer would likely be, "NO!"

#### Harry Bosch

##### Contributor
Biden launches $6B effort to save distressed nuclear plants The program was funded through President Joe Biden’s$1 trillion infrastructure deal
He should put just as much effort into the construction of newer, safer plants.
It's doubtful that they can get much safer than "zero radiation deaths or injuries ever", which is the standard the old plants have set.

That we see people calling for safer designs, given the history of the current crop, tells you everything about the insanity of the anti nuclear lobby. Literally no level of safety will ever be safe enough for these idiots.
I blame Godzilla! For some reason, all the deaths and accidents surrounding non-nuclear power plants just aren't sexy. If we truly wanted safe power, that is constant, that doesn't add carbon to atmosphere, and doesn't fund war efforts, we'd go nuclear.

#### Jimmy Higgins

##### Contributor
Biden launches $6B effort to save distressed nuclear plants The program was funded through President Joe Biden’s$1 trillion infrastructure deal
He should put just as much effort into the construction of newer, safer plants.
It's doubtful that they can get much safer than "zero radiation deaths or injuries ever", which is the standard the old plants have set.

That we see people calling for safer designs, given the history of the current crop, tells you everything about the insanity of the anti nuclear lobby. Literally no level of safety will ever be safe enough for these idiots.
I blame Godzilla! For some reason, all the deaths and accidents surrounding non-nuclear power plants just aren't sexy. If we truly wanted safe power, that is constant, that doesn't add carbon to atmosphere, and doesn't fund war efforts, we'd go nuclear.
I think it was the initial issue with nuclear in the US, followed by the release of The China Syndrome a film that didn't do much until, it was quickly followed right up with Three Mile Island.

#### bilby

##### Fair dinkum thinkum
Biden launches $6B effort to save distressed nuclear plants The program was funded through President Joe Biden’s$1 trillion infrastructure deal
He should put just as much effort into the construction of newer, safer plants.
It's doubtful that they can get much safer than "zero radiation deaths or injuries ever", which is the standard the old plants have set.

That we see people calling for safer designs, given the history of the current crop, tells you everything about the insanity of the anti nuclear lobby. Literally no level of safety will ever be safe enough for these idiots.
I blame Godzilla! For some reason, all the deaths and accidents surrounding non-nuclear power plants just aren't sexy. If we truly wanted safe power, that is constant, that doesn't add carbon to atmosphere, and doesn't fund war efforts, we'd go nuclear.
I think it was the initial issue with nuclear in the US, followed by the release of The China Syndrome a film that didn't do much until, it was quickly followed right up with Three Mile Island.
There's little doubt that, as with the equally 'strange but true' fact that Elvis was responsible for a significant portion of Polio eradication, a significant portion of climate change is the fault of Jane Fonda.

Celebrity shouldn't be that powerful. But it is.

#### Jimmy Higgins

##### Contributor
Biden launches $6B effort to save distressed nuclear plants The program was funded through President Joe Biden’s$1 trillion infrastructure deal
He should put just as much effort into the construction of newer, safer plants.
It's doubtful that they can get much safer than "zero radiation deaths or injuries ever", which is the standard the old plants have set.

That we see people calling for safer designs, given the history of the current crop, tells you everything about the insanity of the anti nuclear lobby. Literally no level of safety will ever be safe enough for these idiots.
I blame Godzilla! For some reason, all the deaths and accidents surrounding non-nuclear power plants just aren't sexy. If we truly wanted safe power, that is constant, that doesn't add carbon to atmosphere, and doesn't fund war efforts, we'd go nuclear.
I think it was the initial issue with nuclear in the US, followed by the release of The China Syndrome a film that didn't do much until, it was quickly followed right up with Three Mile Island.
There's little doubt that, as with the equally 'strange but true' fact that Elvis was responsible for a significant portion of Polio eradication, a significant portion of climate change is the fault of Jane Fonda.

Celebrity shouldn't be that powerful. But it is.
It wasn't as much the celebrity as it was a movie about a nuclear incident (which oddly enough didn't actually kill (or harm) anyone either), followed by the Three Mile Island incident (no killed or harmed in that either). Nuclear was newish and this impacted public perception a lot, a sort of 'this is only the beginning' mindset. And in the end, it was almost nothing at all.

Even with that, The China Syndrome wasn't a one-way nuclear sux train. Lemmon's character is defending the thing the whole way.

#### bilby

##### Fair dinkum thinkum
Even with that, The China Syndrome wasn't a one-way nuclear sux train. Lemmon's character is defending the thing the whole way.
Yeah, and in Die Hard, Alan Rickman made a compelling case in favour of the use of hostages to secure vast unearned wealth.

The introduction of an antagonist to a movie is not typically a genuine attempt at balance on the part of the screenwriters.

#### Jimmy Higgins

##### Contributor
Even with that, The China Syndrome wasn't a one-way nuclear sux train. Lemmon's character is defending the thing the whole way.
Yeah, and in Die Hard, Alan Rickman made a compelling case in favour of the use of hostages to secure vast unearned wealth.

The introduction of an antagonist to a movie is not typically a genuine attempt at balance on the part of the screenwriters.
Except Lemmon's character was right the whole time. Regardless, it planted a seed that bloomed quickly and has had pretty bad consequences on the perception of nuclear in the US.

#### Toni

##### Contributor
Even with that, The China Syndrome wasn't a one-way nuclear sux train. Lemmon's character is defending the thing the whole way.
Yeah, and in Die Hard, Alan Rickman made a compelling case in favour of the use of hostages to secure vast unearned wealth.

The introduction of an antagonist to a movie is not typically a genuine attempt at balance on the part of the screenwriters.
Except Lemmon's character was right the whole time. Regardless, it planted a seed that bloomed quickly and has had pretty bad consequences on the perception of nuclear in the US.
Not as much as 3 Mile Island, Tokaimua, Fukushima and Chernobyl (see current conflict in Ukraine).
Which just updated what we learned or failed to learn about Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Before anyone comments, yes, I'm aware of the years each of these happened. I'm also aware of the danger of Chernobyl right now, this very minute. I'm aware of the dangers of mining uranium to the miners and to the environment. I'm aware of the dangers of waste from nuclear power plants.

None of this because of The China Syndrome.

#### Jimmy Higgins

##### Contributor
Even with that, The China Syndrome wasn't a one-way nuclear sux train. Lemmon's character is defending the thing the whole way.
Yeah, and in Die Hard, Alan Rickman made a compelling case in favour of the use of hostages to secure vast unearned wealth.

The introduction of an antagonist to a movie is not typically a genuine attempt at balance on the part of the screenwriters.
Except Lemmon's character was right the whole time. Regardless, it planted a seed that bloomed quickly and has had pretty bad consequences on the perception of nuclear in the US.
Not as much as 3 Mile Island, Tokaimua, Fukushima and Chernobyl (see current conflict in Ukraine).
Which just updated what we learned or failed to learn about Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Before anyone comments, yes, I'm aware of the years each of these happened. I'm also aware of the danger of Chernobyl right now, this very minute. I'm aware of the dangers of mining uranium to the miners and to the environment. I'm aware of the dangers of waste from nuclear power plants.

None of this because of The China Syndrome.
But the mental picture of the "dangers" of nuclear power plants is the tandem of Three Mile Island and The China Syndrome movie (of which is a great movie still!).

You list those four incidents, yet, even with the complete and utter fuckup that was Chernobyl, the devastation was more caused by the despotic Soviet regime than the radiation. The failure of Fukushima was where they put the diesel generators. The number of people harmed because of nuclear power plants, all the way down to mining is extraordinarily low. Is there danger in mining Uranium? Yeah. So is with coal. And stockpiles or working in scaffoldings.

Nuclear is the only hope... well viable hope of carbon free power generation in our time. And really, we might be running out of time to make a difference in the short-term.

#### Toni

##### Contributor
I’m sure I saw China Syndrome soon after it came out—but honestly, 3 Mile Island made a bigger impression on me—which faded as I felt very reassured by improvements, etc. in technology. Then there was Chernobyl. Are you aware of what has been happening now, with respect to the Russian invasion of Ukraine?

But before the current conflict: Fukushima.

It is difficult for me to ignore millions of acres of forest contaminated by radiation because of Chernobyl. Or the millions and millions of gallons of water made radioactive when used to cool reactors. Especially when discussing saving the environment.

Solar/wind/thermal is a better way to go but most of all, we need to consume much less energy, period

#### Jimmy Higgins

##### Contributor
I’m sure I saw China Syndrome soon after it came out—but honestly, 3 Mile Island made a bigger impression on me—which faded as I felt very reassured by improvements, etc. in technology. Then there was Chernobyl. Are you aware of what has been happening now, with respect to the Russian invasion of Ukraine?
Not much. The international agency isn't particularly worried.
But before the current conflict: Fukushima.

It is difficult for me to ignore millions of acres of forest contaminated by radiation because of Chernobyl. Or the millions and millions of gallons of water made radioactive when used to cool reactors. Especially when discussing saving the environment.

Solar/wind/thermal is a better way to go but most of all, we need to consume much less energy, period
We need to insulate to save energy for heating/cooling. But otherwise, solar/wind/thermal isn't getting us there. There just isn't enough. I want there to be. Why risk nuclear at all if an array of solar could supply us with enough energy to live in the first world. But it can't.

#### Toni

##### Contributor
I’m sure I saw China Syndrome soon after it came out—but honestly, 3 Mile Island made a bigger impression on me—which faded as I felt very reassured by improvements, etc. in technology. Then there was Chernobyl. Are you aware of what has been happening now, with respect to the Russian invasion of Ukraine?
Not much. The international agency isn't particularly worried.
But before the current conflict: Fukushima.

It is difficult for me to ignore millions of acres of forest contaminated by radiation because of Chernobyl. Or the millions and millions of gallons of water made radioactive when used to cool reactors. Especially when discussing saving the environment.

Solar/wind/thermal is a better way to go but most of all, we need to consume much less energy, period
We need to insulate to save energy for heating/cooling. But otherwise, solar/wind/thermal isn't getting us there. There just isn't enough. I want there to be. Why risk nuclear at all if an array of solar could supply us with enough energy to live in the first world. But it can't.
We’ve barely tried it.

#### TV and credit cards

##### Veteran Member
We need to keep trying with regard to renewables. We should have been trying for decades. We're so good at dropping the ball. We need to juggle renewables and nuclear. Generation III nuclear plants are safer than Generation II in that they have more passive safety measures in place. Measures that require no electrical, mechanical or human action for effect. I'd go into detail, but I'd murder it.
Regardless of subsidies, our Generation II plants are still old and will still need to be retired.
If France can supply seventy percent of their electricity needs through nuclear power and figure out what to do with the worst of the waste, we can too.

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
Even with that, The China Syndrome wasn't a one-way nuclear sux train. Lemmon's character is defending the thing the whole way.
Yeah, and in Die Hard, Alan Rickman made a compelling case in favour of the use of hostages to secure vast unearned wealth.

The introduction of an antagonist to a movie is not typically a genuine attempt at balance on the part of the screenwriters.
Except Lemmon's character was right the whole time. Regardless, it planted a seed that bloomed quickly and has had pretty bad consequences on the perception of nuclear in the US.
Not as much as 3 Mile Island, Tokaimua, Fukushima and Chernobyl (see current conflict in Ukraine).
Which just updated what we learned or failed to learn about Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Before anyone comments, yes, I'm aware of the years each of these happened. I'm also aware of the danger of Chernobyl right now, this very minute. I'm aware of the dangers of mining uranium to the miners and to the environment. I'm aware of the dangers of waste from nuclear power plants.

None of this because of The China Syndrome.
Sure there are hazards from nuclear. They're a lot less than the hazards of any fossil fuel and roughly equal to the risks of renewables. (Who comes out ahead comes down to how you measure the risk. Nuke remains the best if you don't allocate the stupid Fukushima evacuation deaths to nuclear--staying put was a lot safer than leaving.)

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
I’m sure I saw China Syndrome soon after it came out—but honestly, 3 Mile Island made a bigger impression on me—which faded as I felt very reassured by improvements, etc. in technology. Then there was Chernobyl. Are you aware of what has been happening now, with respect to the Russian invasion of Ukraine?

But before the current conflict: Fukushima.

It is difficult for me to ignore millions of acres of forest contaminated by radiation because of Chernobyl. Or the millions and millions of gallons of water made radioactive when used to cool reactors. Especially when discussing saving the environment.

Chernobyl is what happens when you're an idiot about building and running nuke plants.

Fukushima is the worst remotely sane accident we have--and the expected death toll was less than one.

Solar/wind/thermal is a better way to go but most of all, we need to consume much less energy, period
The latter isn't going to happen. Attempting to make it so actually makes the problems worse.

#### Toni

##### Contributor
Nuclear power plants are currently and for the foreseeable future will be run by human beings. All human beings are fallible and always will be.

Nuclear power plants have the ability to kill thousands of people and make uninhabitable millions of acres of forest and killing outright all the wildlife therein contained and making the entire affected area uninhabitable. For generations. Same thing with oceans, rivers and lakes.

It’s not a question of of but when the next accident will happen.

#### Swammerdami

Staff member
'Swallowing a toad': Progressives warm to Manchin's fossil fuel demands to clinch climate package - POLITICO - "Voters' frustration with high energy prices and the likelihood that Democrats will lose control of the House in November have made progressives more open to a deal."
For example, Khanna, Porter and other progressives have introduced legislation that would tax large oil companies for the huge profits they are reaping from surging crude prices, a policy they say would incentivize more drilling and bring down prices and resulting tax burden.

Progressives including McEachin and Porter are also pushing to provide rebates or direct payments to consumers to help offset high gas prices, an idea backed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that could drive up fuel demand.

“It is unfortunate we have to do that, but the time demands action and the American people are certainly deserving of action,” McEachin said.

For several decades many Americans — including centrists like myself — have been pushing for higher prices for gasoline and other carbon-based fuels. This would encourage conservation, car-pooling, and the use of non-carbon energy. That battle is finally won! Let's be careful about how we "provide rebates or direct payments to consumers to help offset high gas prices" so as not to undo the GOOD that those high prices do.

I certainly do agree that the huge profits reaped from these high prices should not just be passed to ExxonMobile stockholders nor to the murderous Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia. The money should be used for deficit reduction.

#### bilby

##### Fair dinkum thinkum
I’m sure I saw China Syndrome soon after it came out—but honestly, 3 Mile Island made a bigger impression on me—which faded as I felt very reassured by improvements, etc. in technology. Then there was Chernobyl. Are you aware of what has been happening now, with respect to the Russian invasion of Ukraine?

But before the current conflict: Fukushima.

It is difficult for me to ignore millions of acres of forest contaminated by radiation because of Chernobyl. Or the millions and millions of gallons of water made radioactive when used to cool reactors. Especially when discussing saving the environment.

Solar/wind/thermal is a better way to go but most of all, we need to consume much less energy, period
Water is radioactive even if you don't use it to cool reactors.

The water that they are storing at Fukushima is not only completely harmless to the ocean if it were dumped; It's drinkable. There's literally no medical, public health, environmental or other scientific reason not to allow it to be dumped into the ocean. But it makes an excellent way to engender fear - look, it's worked on you.

Very slightly tritiated water isn't a hazard to anyone unless they drown in it.

If a similar set of safety protocols were demanded of the chemical industry, Bhopal would still be a no-go zone. As would the entire Gulf of Mexico.

There comes a point where refusing to allow an entirely hypothetical risk is actually causing severe harm. The measures taken at Fukushima since day one have done far more harm than good. The evacuation killed dozens, to avoid a tiny risk of any fatalities at all from radiation. Fear makes people stupid.

#### bilby

##### Fair dinkum thinkum
I’m sure I saw China Syndrome soon after it came out—but honestly, 3 Mile Island made a bigger impression on me—which faded as I felt very reassured by improvements, etc. in technology. Then there was Chernobyl. Are you aware of what has been happening now, with respect to the Russian invasion of Ukraine?
Not much. The international agency isn't particularly worried.
But before the current conflict: Fukushima.

It is difficult for me to ignore millions of acres of forest contaminated by radiation because of Chernobyl. Or the millions and millions of gallons of water made radioactive when used to cool reactors. Especially when discussing saving the environment.

Solar/wind/thermal is a better way to go but most of all, we need to consume much less energy, period
We need to insulate to save energy for heating/cooling. But otherwise, solar/wind/thermal isn't getting us there. There just isn't enough. I want there to be. Why risk nuclear at all if an array of solar could supply us with enough energy to live in the first world. But it can't.
Nuclear is safer than Solar.

More people have died in the USA alone in the last twenty years due to solar power, than have died worldwide ever due to nuclear power (including [indeed, mostly] the fatalities at Chernobyl). Most solar power fatalities are single individuals who fall from rooftops during installation or maintenance.

The hazard from either source is tiny, but Solar is demonstrably more hazardous.

So my question is, why risk solar at all, given that nuclear power can supply all the energy we need to live in the first world?

#### Toni

##### Contributor
I’m sure I saw China Syndrome soon after it came out—but honestly, 3 Mile Island made a bigger impression on me—which faded as I felt very reassured by improvements, etc. in technology. Then there was Chernobyl. Are you aware of what has been happening now, with respect to the Russian invasion of Ukraine?
Not much. The international agency isn't particularly worried.
But before the current conflict: Fukushima.

It is difficult for me to ignore millions of acres of forest contaminated by radiation because of Chernobyl. Or the millions and millions of gallons of water made radioactive when used to cool reactors. Especially when discussing saving the environment.

Solar/wind/thermal is a better way to go but most of all, we need to consume much less energy, period
We need to insulate to save energy for heating/cooling. But otherwise, solar/wind/thermal isn't getting us there. There just isn't enough. I want there to be. Why risk nuclear at all if an array of solar could supply us with enough energy to live in the first world. But it can't.
Nuclear is safer than Solar.

More people have died in the USA alone in the last twenty years due to solar power, than have died worldwide ever due to nuclear power (including [indeed, mostly] the fatalities at Chernobyl). Most solar power fatalities are single individuals who fall from rooftops during installation or maintenance.

The hazard from either source is tiny, but Solar is demonstrably more hazardous.

So my question is, why risk solar at all, given that nuclear power can supply all the energy we need to live in the first world?
Because solar kills one unfortunate person at a time and doesn’t keep killing people and plants abs animals and microbes for generations or cause cancer or deformities.

#### bilby

##### Fair dinkum thinkum
We need to keep trying with regard to renewables. We should have been trying for decades. We're so good at dropping the ball. We need to juggle renewables and nuclear. Generation III nuclear plants are safer than Generation II in that they have more passive safety measures in place. Measures that require no electrical, mechanical or human action for effect. I'd go into detail, but I'd murder it.
Regardless of subsidies, our Generation II plants are still old and will still need to be retired.
If France can supply seventy percent of their electricity needs through nuclear power and figure out what to do with the worst of the waste, we can too.
Germany has spent three decades now putting vast effort and insane amounts of money into making renewables work.

As a result of this huge effort, they are completely dependent on Russian gas supplies to keep the lights on. And are still emitting lots of carbon when they burn that gas.

France actually achieved ultra low carbon emissions electricity, in a third of the time and at a minuscule fraction of the cost, and now they sell electricity to Germany.

There's no need to speculate about which approach might be better; No need to do yet more research in the vain hope that asking the question for the thousandth time might get a different answer. We know what works, and we know what doesn't.

Vladimir Putin hopes that we continue to vote for people who are happy to ignore that hard earned knowledge.

#### bilby

##### Fair dinkum thinkum
I’m sure I saw China Syndrome soon after it came out—but honestly, 3 Mile Island made a bigger impression on me—which faded as I felt very reassured by improvements, etc. in technology. Then there was Chernobyl. Are you aware of what has been happening now, with respect to the Russian invasion of Ukraine?
Not much. The international agency isn't particularly worried.
But before the current conflict: Fukushima.

It is difficult for me to ignore millions of acres of forest contaminated by radiation because of Chernobyl. Or the millions and millions of gallons of water made radioactive when used to cool reactors. Especially when discussing saving the environment.

Solar/wind/thermal is a better way to go but most of all, we need to consume much less energy, period
We need to insulate to save energy for heating/cooling. But otherwise, solar/wind/thermal isn't getting us there. There just isn't enough. I want there to be. Why risk nuclear at all if an array of solar could supply us with enough energy to live in the first world. But it can't.
Nuclear is safer than Solar.

More people have died in the USA alone in the last twenty years due to solar power, than have died worldwide ever due to nuclear power (including [indeed, mostly] the fatalities at Chernobyl). Most solar power fatalities are single individuals who fall from rooftops during installation or maintenance.

The hazard from either source is tiny, but Solar is demonstrably more hazardous.

So my question is, why risk solar at all, given that nuclear power can supply all the energy we need to live in the first world?
Because solar kills one unfortunate person at a time and doesn’t keep killing people and plants abs animals and microbes for generations or cause cancer or deformities.
Nuclear kills nobody, unless they are doing unauthorised and stupid experiments with badly designed Soviet reactors.

The mining of rare earths used in both wind and solar facilities actually does have the problems you are imagining for nuclear power. Radiation isn't the only carcinogen by a long chalk - it's just the only one that is almost universally effectively managed.

I seriously doubt any widow ever has found consolation in her husband's death having been the only fatality that week.

#### bilby

##### Fair dinkum thinkum
Nuclear power plants are currently and for the foreseeable future will be run by human beings. All human beings are fallible and always will be.

Nuclear power plants have the ability to kill thousands of people and make uninhabitable millions of acres of forest and killing outright all the wildlife therein contained and making the entire affected area uninhabitable. For generations. Same thing with oceans, rivers and lakes.

It’s not a question of of but when the next accident will happen.
Nuclear power plants do not have the ability to kill thousands of people.

You have been deliberately and comprehensively lied to.

Chernobyl wasn't only the worst nuclear accident ever; It was damn near the worst possible. Almost the entire inventory of radionuclides was dispersed widely, with a very slow official response to start protecting the public. The total death toll was nowhere close to a thousand.

The same year, the Union Carbide factory in Bhopal, India, had an isocyanate leak that killed about twenty times as many people as Chernobyl, and contaminated a wider area, with at least half a million people seriously injured.

The difference between these two disasters is that nobody's still making HBO miniseries about Bhopal, and that non-nuclear industrial accidents on the scale of Chernobyl happen every year or two. They make the news for a day or two; Nobody's trying to use accidents from forty years ago as a reason to shut down the entire chemical industry. Because that would be taking fear way beyond any rational level.

#### Jimmy Higgins

##### Contributor
I’m sure I saw China Syndrome soon after it came out—but honestly, 3 Mile Island made a bigger impression on me—which faded as I felt very reassured by improvements, etc. in technology. Then there was Chernobyl. Are you aware of what has been happening now, with respect to the Russian invasion of Ukraine?
Not much. The international agency isn't particularly worried.
But before the current conflict: Fukushima.

It is difficult for me to ignore millions of acres of forest contaminated by radiation because of Chernobyl. Or the millions and millions of gallons of water made radioactive when used to cool reactors. Especially when discussing saving the environment.

Solar/wind/thermal is a better way to go but most of all, we need to consume much less energy, period
We need to insulate to save energy for heating/cooling. But otherwise, solar/wind/thermal isn't getting us there. There just isn't enough. I want there to be. Why risk nuclear at all if an array of solar could supply us with enough energy to live in the first world. But it can't.
We’ve barely tried it.
The Germans did and they didn't get the breakthrough we were hoping would happen. Think about it, for solar to work, we'd need to through panels up everywhere. For nuclear power to work, we need a single power plant for every x million people. The resources required, the length of duration, ability to handle hail... clouds...

Let me be clear, I'm not uber joyous over nuclear. It is just, as an engineer and growing up over the last 20 years, has shown the wind and solar didn't get there. PEI in Canada has exploded in wind power generation, 10 or 20x since I was there last. And it is still a small fraction of their power needs. If PEI, a small rural island on the skirts of the Atlantic can't make wind work as even a majority power source... it can't be done. Thermodynamics is a bitch.

The only thing that can challenge Nuclear Fission is Nuclear Fusion, and the star in a box just doesn't seem feasible. If we could ever make a transistor2 like breakthrough in power storage, wires rotating in the Van Allen Belts would be the other option. Wind and solar are good power sources where distributing power via old fashioned means isn't feasible. Otherwise, we just can't transition enough of that energy into power. And solar, specifically, is wasting a boatload of resources.

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
Nuclear power plants are currently and for the foreseeable future will be run by human beings. All human beings are fallible and always will be.

Nuclear power plants have the ability to kill thousands of people and make uninhabitable millions of acres of forest and killing outright all the wildlife therein contained and making the entire affected area uninhabitable. For generations. Same thing with oceans, rivers and lakes.

It’s not a question of of but when the next accident will happen.

That's the question with every source of power. The track record is that nuke is considerably better than any fossil fuel. It's just the fossil fuel deaths are mostly dispersed and not noticeable.

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
Because solar kills one unfortunate person at a time and doesn’t keep killing people and plants abs animals and microbes for generations or cause cancer or deformities.
But what counts is the number of deaths, not how they happen.

Note that nuke deaths make the news because they're so rare.

#### Swammerdami

Staff member
Despite the title, this seems to be the thread for discussing the safety of nuclear reactors. How many of you have seen the Netflix docuseries Meltdown: Three Mile Island ?

I thoroughly enjoyed the documentary on Chernobyl. It shows the series of design issues and human incompetence that led to the disaster instrumental to the collapse of the Soviet Union. The problems seemed to stem more from incompetence than corruption. As I watched it, I thought "We wouldn't see this level of incompetence in the U.S.A."

I didn't find the first two episodes of Meltdown: Three Mile Island very interesting and almost didn't finish the docuseries. I'm glad I persisted. If you believe the documentary, the behavior of GPU, Bechtel and the NRC went beyond incompetence to criminal fraud. Apparently their corrupt incompetent behavior began even before the accident when they ignored reports of leaky water pipes, the eventual accident's cause.

Watch it!

Much of the story is told by Rick Parks, a reactor expert involved in the TMI cleanup. He was a proponent of nuclear power and admirer of Admiral Rickover. However he became worried that the polar crane inside the reactor might have been damaged by the core melting and that if not inspected and repaired the crane might fail during its planned usage to remove the reactor head. If that head slammed into the reactor core a major explosion or "China syndrome" might follow. Management was not interested in his advice, burgled his house for documents, and attempted to frame him as grounds for arrest or dismissal. He became a whistleblower. The NRC did vote to postpone use of that crane. When it was eventually tested results showed, according to Parks, that it might indeed have failed just as he feared.

I'd never heard of Rick Parks or these allegations. Wikipedia doesn't seem to know of Rick Parks or these allegations either. The top Google hits are to articles posted AFTER the docuseries appeared. What gives?

What does this have to do with nuclear power safety? Just that whatever the theoretical safety of a nuclear reactor, we must remember that decisions are often made by corrupt greedy businessmen and politicians.

#### bilby

##### Fair dinkum thinkum
Despite the title, this seems to be the thread for discussing the safety of nuclear reactors. How many of you have seen the Netflix docuseries Meltdown: Three Mile Island ?

I thoroughly enjoyed the documentary on Chernobyl. It shows the series of design issues and human incompetence that led to the disaster instrumental to the collapse of the Soviet Union. The problems seemed to stem more from incompetence than corruption. As I watched it, I thought "We wouldn't see this level of incompetence in the U.S.A."

I didn't find the first two episodes of Meltdown: Three Mile Island very interesting and almost didn't finish the docuseries. I'm glad I persisted. If you believe the documentary, the behavior of GPU, Bechtel and the NRC went beyond incompetence to criminal fraud. Apparently their corrupt incompetent behavior began even before the accident when they ignored reports of leaky water pipes, the eventual accident's cause.

Watch it!

Much of the story is told by Rick Parks, a reactor expert involved in the TMI cleanup. He was a proponent of nuclear power and admirer of Admiral Rickover. However he became worried that the polar crane inside the reactor might have been damaged by the core melting and that if not inspected and repaired the crane might fail during its planned usage to remove the reactor head. If that head slammed into the reactor core a major explosion or "China syndrome" might follow. Management was not interested in his advice, burgled his house for documents, and attempted to frame him as grounds for arrest or dismissal. He became a whistleblower. The NRC did vote to postpone use of that crane. When it was eventually tested results showed, according to Parks, that it might indeed have failed just as he feared.

I'd never heard of Rick Parks or these allegations. Wikipedia doesn't seem to know of Rick Parks or these allegations either. The top Google hits are to articles posted AFTER the docuseries appeared. What gives?

What does this have to do with nuclear power safety? Just that whatever the theoretical safety of a nuclear reactor, we must remember that decisions are often made by corrupt greedy businessmen and politicians.
I would be interested to know the proposed mechanism by which an object impacting upon an already damaged reactor core, that has subsequently ceased to generate heat, causes either an explosion, or sufficient new heat generation to melt through the containment.

It sounds like somebody doesn't know the difference between a lump of partially melted metals and a stack of nitroglycerin.

Nuclear reactors are really, really difficult to make explode. It's not something that happens because you give them a sharp blow; Its likely impossible to achieve for a PWR design, and is certainly not something you could achieve via a crude physical impact - you would need deliberate, Chernobyl level, incompetence while specifically manipulating the controls of a working and operational reactor, and deliberately disabling a number of separate safety systems.

These are not sensitive systems that are teetering on the edge of catastrophe. Despite the wild claims made to the contrary by (or at least for) people who haven't the slightest clue how they work.

There's no level of corruption or greed that can cause a damaged PWR to spontaneously rebuild itself into an atom bomb with a hair trigger. If making a nuclear explosion were that easy that it could happen accidentally in a damaged PWR, the Manhattan Project would have lasted a week and cost a couple of hundred bucks.

Nuclear meltdowns are a bad thing, because they cause the loss of an expensive and valuable power generation unit. They are not a threat to life or health; As Fukushima demonstrated, even in older reactor designs, multiple meltdowns don't lead to deaths, or to injuries outside the plant itself. They're expensive, but not particularly dangerous, industrial accidents of a level of seriousness that is accepted as 'business as usual' outside the nuclear and commercial aviation industries.

#### TV and credit cards

##### Veteran Member
Biden breaks the internet.

So fiber is being run out to the rural areas around these here parts. Everyone here in town is just about all fibered up now. And the upstart municipal fiber/lit communities is spooling out the glass too.
But the corn shuckers getting it is the real story. Will this endear Biden to rural America or will it provide a conduit for high speed conspiracy theories? Stay tuned.

#### Jimmy Higgins

##### Contributor
Biden breaks the internet.

So fiber is being run out to the rural areas around these here parts. Everyone here in town is just about all fibered up now. And the upstart municipal fiber/lit communities is spooling out the glass too.
But the corn shuckers getting it is the real story. Will this endear Biden to rural America or will it provide a conduit for high speed conspiracy theories? Stay tuned.
THAT'S IT! We need to link Fiber with 5G conspiracy theories... which would then lead these idiots to hooking up their 14.4k modems which would restrict their ability to communicate online via USENET.

#### TV and credit cards

##### Veteran Member
Biden breaks the internet.

So fiber is being run out to the rural areas around these here parts. Everyone here in town is just about all fibered up now. And the upstart municipal fiber/lit communities is spooling out the glass too.
But the corn shuckers getting it is the real story. Will this endear Biden to rural America or will it provide a conduit for high speed conspiracy theories? Stay tuned.
THAT'S IT! We need to link Fiber with 5G conspiracy theories... which would then lead these idiots to hooking up their 14.4k modems which would restrict their ability to communicate online via USENET.
Bidenet will have liberal band-pass filters installed on the political spectrum. Conservative commentary will be rejected.

Wait for Trump fiber to be deployed. It's called, "The Light".