@RobertKennedyJr ran through the anti-nuclear playbook during his interview on Breaking Points.
While there were too many errors and confusions to cover in one thread, I’ll touch on the main points I took issue with. Let’s clear the record:
While there were too many errors and confusions to cover in one thread, I’ll touch on the main points I took issue with. Let’s clear the record:
@RobertKennedyJr asserts that energy policy is written “to benefit the dirtiest, filthiest, most poisonous, most toxic, most war-mongering fuels from hell”
“[Polluters] raise standards of living for themselves by lowering quality of life for the rest of us”
“[Polluters] raise standards of living for themselves by lowering quality of life for the rest of us”
Cringe aside, it's dishonest to look at pollution from energy in a vacuum.
Increasing energy consumption over time has coincided with greater levels of healthcare, education, democracy, security, & economic freedom.
Historically, these advances have been powered by fossil fuels
Increasing energy consumption over time has coincided with greater levels of healthcare, education, democracy, security, & economic freedom.
Historically, these advances have been powered by fossil fuels
@RobertKennedyJr seems to believe the ills of our energy system would be cured with a more free market for energy.
That's a whole separate can of worms. To learn more about what's going wrong in power markets, check out this piece from @nukebarbarian:
americanaffairsjournal.org
That's a whole separate can of worms. To learn more about what's going wrong in power markets, check out this piece from @nukebarbarian:
americanaffairsjournal.org
Ok, now for the nuclear nonsense.
@RobertKennedyJr pulled the classic I'm All For Nuclear Power BUT maneuver.
“I’m all for nuclear power if you can ever make it safe and efficient. It’s not safe”
@RobertKennedyJr pulled the classic I'm All For Nuclear Power BUT maneuver.
“I’m all for nuclear power if you can ever make it safe and efficient. It’s not safe”
Nuclear power in the U.S. has a perfect safety record: zero deaths, injuries, or serious environmental releases.
The worst nuclear accident in the world had a fraction of the casualties of other energy accidents many people have never heard of.
The worst nuclear accident in the world had a fraction of the casualties of other energy accidents many people have never heard of.
And not efficient? Nuclear power is the most efficient source of power we have.
It requires the least amount of land, least amount of mining, has the highest reliability factor of any energy source we use, and is not restricted by geography, weather, or time of day/year.
It requires the least amount of land, least amount of mining, has the highest reliability factor of any energy source we use, and is not restricted by geography, weather, or time of day/year.
How does @RobertKennedyJr justify his claim that nuclear power isn't safe?
He says the industry is so risky that insurers including Lloyd’s of London won’t insure nuclear plants.
Instead, the Price-Anderson Act “immunizes all these plants from their own accountability”
He says the industry is so risky that insurers including Lloyd’s of London won’t insure nuclear plants.
Instead, the Price-Anderson Act “immunizes all these plants from their own accountability”
@RobertKennedyJr managed to get this issue exactly backwards.
Price-Anderson requires every operator to take the maximum amount of commercially available insurance on their reactor.
Each policy is around $450 million.
Price-Anderson requires every operator to take the maximum amount of commercially available insurance on their reactor.
Each policy is around $450 million.
These commercial policies are provided by pools of private insurers.
In the UK, their nuclear risk insurers pool includes none other than Lloyd’s of London.
youtu.be
In the UK, their nuclear risk insurers pool includes none other than Lloyd’s of London.
youtu.be
Above that, the industry has to collectively pay up to $15 billion to cover damages. Only after that will there be congressional spend on liability.
Not a single taxpayer dime has ever been paid out under Price-Anderson for liability from a non-governmental nuclear incident.
Not a single taxpayer dime has ever been paid out under Price-Anderson for liability from a non-governmental nuclear incident.
In incorrectly explaining how the industry evades liability, @RobertKennedyJr describes an accident that would make New York City uninhabitable.
This is shameless fear-mongering. Chernobyl was far from uninhabitable. Even Hiroshima is a thriving city.
This is shameless fear-mongering. Chernobyl was far from uninhabitable. Even Hiroshima is a thriving city.
Next, @RobertKennedyJr talks about tritiated water, claiming that there’s “so much radiation going into the Pacific” from Fukushima.
You’d need to drink over a gallon of the treated water being released from Fukushima to get the equivalent radiation exposure of eating a banana.
You’d need to drink over a gallon of the treated water being released from Fukushima to get the equivalent radiation exposure of eating a banana.
The conversation then shifts to economics.
@RobertKennedyJr argues that while nuclear plants are expensive, wind and solar facilities are cheaper.
Then, you get “free fuel forever; the wind and the sun are free”
@RobertKennedyJr argues that while nuclear plants are expensive, wind and solar facilities are cheaper.
Then, you get “free fuel forever; the wind and the sun are free”
1. Wind and solar facilities have a short operational lifespans and need to be replaced every 20-30 years
2. The back up generation needed when the free wind and sun aren’t around isn’t free, and is actually rather expensive even when compared to Vogtle
2. The back up generation needed when the free wind and sun aren’t around isn’t free, and is actually rather expensive even when compared to Vogtle
Another cost @RobertKennedyJr brings up is the waste.
Waste management doesn’t make nuclear electricity expensive. This is because there’s a high amount of revenue earned when plants are allowed to run at full capacity, while waste volumes produced are incredibly small.
Waste management doesn’t make nuclear electricity expensive. This is because there’s a high amount of revenue earned when plants are allowed to run at full capacity, while waste volumes produced are incredibly small.
@RobertKennedyJr cites the alleged danger and longevity of the waste.
As I explained in the @nytimes, nuclear waste is unique compared to other waste in that it becomes less dangerous over time.
After 500 years, you'd have to eat it or snort it.
As I explained in the @nytimes, nuclear waste is unique compared to other waste in that it becomes less dangerous over time.
After 500 years, you'd have to eat it or snort it.
“They’ve given us the most expensive way to boil a pot of water that has ever been devised by humanity”
In Illinois, this expensive way to boil water returned $1 billion to ratepayers while the rest of the nation’s electricity bills went up.
In Illinois, this expensive way to boil water returned $1 billion to ratepayers while the rest of the nation’s electricity bills went up.
@RobertKennedyJr says he cares about carbon.
France almost entirely decarbonized decades before climate targets existed with nuclear.
Is French electricity cripplingly expensive? On the contrary, French electricity has been ~10X cleaner than Germany’s at nearly half the cost.
France almost entirely decarbonized decades before climate targets existed with nuclear.
Is French electricity cripplingly expensive? On the contrary, French electricity has been ~10X cleaner than Germany’s at nearly half the cost.
I didn’t touch on everything one can and should take issue with from this segment on energy, and certainly more than can be said on each point.
What’s clear from this interview is that @RobertKennedyJr's talking points are as fossilized as the fossil fuels he loves to hate.
What’s clear from this interview is that @RobertKennedyJr's talking points are as fossilized as the fossil fuels he loves to hate.
Loading suggestions...