13 votes

Ron Paul On Nuclear Energy

He does say it's very very dangerous but he also said he's convinced it's the safest form of energy that we can have.

In light of Fukishima and how it apparently has reached California, I will say it really scares me. I don't like government interfering in business but let's say that a nuclear explosion makes life unlivable on the planet? Are monetary damages to a nuclear company going to make any difference? I feel the same way about hydro-fracking as well actually.

I hope I don't get slammed for posting this because I am a very staunch Ron Paul supporter and believe in almost all of his policies. The one that has always worried me, though, is the environment. Admittedly he has said that his views on environmentalism haven't been well elucidated (though he does think that they are strong and will work). I know he always mentions property rights when it comes to this (saying they would take care of almost all the problems).

But again, what about the case where an accident destroys a large are of land, making it unlivable? Is monetary compensation going to fix that? And even if it could, wouldn't the company just declare bankruptcy and the payments never would get made? And I also want to say that it might not even take an accident (e.g. nuclear explosion) for the dangers of something to be exposed. What then?

And lastly, wouldn't we have to rely on the court system to enforce justice? How has that been working out lately as far as courts taking on big business?


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

For a more positive outlook on Nuclear war

I am sure this website is factual, Still am looking into it, but it destroys the myths of nuclear war that our culture fears


The beat of fear mongering is ever present

The World Health Organization said last year that 1 million in the US would die from burning coal. People are often ignorant to the fact that coal plants emit 1000x as much radiation as a nuclear power plant. If coal plants faced the same stiff regulation nuclear power plants did- not a single one would be in operation today.

There are also many forms of nuclear power- with drawbacks and advantages, the best I have seen so far is the LFTR reactor- I suggest you youtube it. Here is also a pretty good article on the subject

But lets get to the gravy. Regulation for coal for example is double edged sword, it allows an industry insider arbitrary standard to be set, one that makes a certain level of harm legal. It strips citizens of recourse in the courts by denying them personal and property rights. The people that set the standards and enforce are back doors created in government.

some info from a Navy Nuke

You don't have to worry about another Chernobyl. Their plant had a positive temperature coefficient of reactivity and that is now illegal in the US. In other words, when the plant temperature went up, the Chernobyl plant became more reactive (more efficient at using neutrons to produce fission). In America, all our plants have a negative temperature coefficient of reactivity. This is done mostly through core geometry. This is good because nearly all casualties cause a rise in plant temperature. When temperature rises, reactivity goes down and the plant becomes less efficient at using neutrons for fission. It's a very effective safety feature. Unlike Chernobyl where they lost cooling, the plant heated up and went supercritical in a matter of seconds. The Navy has been safely operating nukes on subs and carriers for half a century.


Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) energy

It was mentioned below by wpsmithjr, but I thought it needed an explicit post. This is a technology that we should be very interested in because it is unequivocally better than the nuclear energy we currently use. It's a technology that has been suppressed by our government for purely political reasons. Apparently, the Chinese are interested in it and are planning on building these types of reactors. We are going to be left in the dust by nations using technology that we invented 50 years ago- that makes me mad.

It's a long video but worth the watch;
LFTR in 5 Minutes - THORIUM REMIX 2011

I'm just now catching up on all the replies

I thank everyone who replied for their input. And I wish I would have put in the original post that I wouldn't even consider voting for any other candidate (except for Gary Johnson in a specific set of circumstances). I definitely don't think any of the other candidates (Obama/Romney/Santorum/Newt) would be any better energy policy-wise. I'm just bringing up one of the *very few* points that I have a concern w/ Dr. Paul about. In spite of that, I still think he's the best candidate, by far, of my lifetime. In fact, he might be the *only* good candidate of my lifetime.

The *only* good candidate of our lifetimes...

Very likely.

Most nuclear accidents happen

Most nuclear accidents happen because of human error, not because of design flaws. The latest incident was indeed caused by design flaws, but thats because the design was decades old and no where near up to date; had it been a modern design, nothing bad would have happened. Three Mile Island on the other hand was almost entirely caused by human error; people in the control room didnt even know what some of the lights on the control panels were for.
I have also seen a list of nuclear accidents and radiation releases in the US, like I said, most of these were preventable and were caused because of human error; that being laziness, cheapness, and not wanting to take responsibility, some were actual mistakes.
Nuclear really is safe enough to use, provided people take responsibility and the correct steps are taken.

To climb the mountain, you must believe you can.

Even with multiple human errors

and several safety systems offline TMI was essentially a non issue because the redundancy of systems. There are multiple fail-safe systems and those systems that were still available were adequate to deal with a worst case reactor scenario.

I agree with you on

I agree with you on everything except your conclusion; unless, you've found error-less humans that I'm unaware of, you have proven the point of all who question the validity of nuclear power. Humans make mistakes, and making a mistake with a nuclear power plant is potentially far more deadly to a greater number of people than making an error at a natural gas facility.

Dr. Helen Caldicott: What We

Dr. Helen Caldicott: What We Learned From Fukushima (April 2, 2012) Seattle:


If you are not a troll

then who is?


Stop with oil, gas, coal and fracking propaganda!

Possibly you are? Or possibly you are sincere but...

Bringing in topics that are designed to alienate potential Ron Paul supporters and drive them to the "Sane" candidates is what the Trolls do. If we stick to the issues and bring people to the campaign is the opposite of what Trolls do.

Your claim about wholly subsidized industry is simply untrue. Nuke plants are generally financed through a bond sale an are the most expensive to build but least expensive to operate of all large scale power systems. They are paid off by the rate payers. The reason power companies used to love a Nuke plant is that the ability to increase a utility rate is easier on capital expenditures than on expense budget. Selling it to the regulators who they fought tooth an nail was easier. When the plant finally went online it cost a lot less than coal and far less than Natural Gas. Per KWh they get far less subsidy than any alternate energy option and even less than natural gas since it was sold as a bridge technology.

Some years ago I had the interesting opportunity to work with several Nuclear engineers. Some of whom had been involved in working on the monitoring of TMI. They have all worked in and around plants and they have a completely different story than the anti-nuke advocates.

Simply...or not so simply...untrue.

The building of plants is the least of the subsidy. The research and development, the regulation, the cleanup, etc. etc. etc. are a different story. But of course that doesn't matter. Surprise, surprise, the pro-nuke people (who have a big financial stake in the continuation of nuclear technology) have a completely different story.

Yep, the entire university-industrial complex has a completely different story, as does the military-industrial complex. Yessiree, there are a lot of folks all for more military spending. That's what we need. And more spending on nuclear as well.

Incidentally, the power companies are collectivist entities that are so deep in bed with the government that it is difficult to tell where one ends and the other begins. But I guess the world is full of advocates of fake free-market capitalism.

Dr. Pauls training is in the life sciences.

He has a better grasp of this. Most of the anti Nuclear rhetoric is actually anti free market capitalism activism. They fight Nuclear with fear-mongering like the most recent hoax about the cloud reaching California. Look back about a year and you will see those same claims about the right amount of time it really took for the particulates to actually travel the distance. I suspect that the anniversary was enough visibility for that hoax to be brought up again and most people would not think about the fact that it had come up before. The reason is is a hoax, is because, before any particulates actually reached the US they has dissipated to the point that the radioactivity levels were below normal background radiation.

Fukishima was a bad incident for a reactor of western design and shouldn't have happened. It was actually easy to prevent the disaster, all they needed was hardened backup generators and Fukishima would have been nearly as much of a non event as Three Mile Island. TMI showed that, even a full core meltdown with only 2/3 of safety backups online and people making mistakes under strain that Nuclear is safer than coal, natural gas, solar, and wind. Measure that by death per KWh and Nuclear looks quite good.

Western scientists and engineers all knew for years the Chernobyl design was dangerous but progressive scientists claimed the were was unable to understand their advances. Using Chernobyl to claim Nuclear power is inherently dangerous is pure propaganda.

The biggest cause of safety concern for Nuclear is the NRC. They have allowed an ignorant public driven by activism to stagnate R&D as well as hold back upgrades to newer and safer technologies.

Let the market decide and demand accountability from people (not businesses) if you want the best technology for energy.

How much coal is consumed in

How much coal is consumed in the uranium refining process?
If a coal plant explodes will it slow kill a million people?

I don't like either.

I am sorry

but I disagree with Ron Paul that Nuke power is the safest.
Germany is now 60% Solar and shutting down all nuclear plants.

But I do agree with Ron Paul on not giving these massive subsidies to nuclear, coal and gas.

Do you know that the nuclear industry can not get private investors money. There is not much profit in it. So what you have is a completely government subsidized industry.

Part of the subsidies that utility companies get is used to buy up green companies like solar and wind. Then they raise prices on solar panels etc. to make it less affordable to switch.

But when I think about the Indian nuclear plant about 20 miles from New York City that is built on a fault and that they are planning to build one on the San Andreas fault I wonder. There are about 8 of these plants on faults. Just a few months back you had a plant that flooded and it came close to having our own Fukushima right here in the US.


Now with NASA scientist warning of of Solar flares that will hit in about 12 months. It could fry our whole electric grid preventing diesel fuel to get to nuclear plants. They only have a weeks supply at these plants when they should have a years supply. Yes they need diesel to prevent meltdown.

These magnetic flares happen every so often. There was one in 1859 but the big difference is that back then we did not have everything wired up as we do now. In addition the protective layer around the earth protected us then but now there is a big hole in it. Bigger than the earth. So with nothing slowing or weakening these magnetic Solar flares we are completely exposed. http://www.2013solarflare.com/

If the scientists are correct we could potentially face a nuclear disaster with 400 Fukushimas world wide. If you think fukushima is over. The core is melting in to the earth and they can't stop it but the MSM mention this less than they mention Ron Paul. It is a news black out on that too.


We can run our cars on water! It is already being done cheaply. We can be totally energy independent with Solar, Wind and the rest with the need for oil or gas as fuel.
But most have bought in to the industry propaganda which we hear on all major news outlets. All these technologies are are already there ready to use.

In India you can buy a car that runs on air! When will we see that here with the influence the energy industries have on congress? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f15thOvhE38

Bob lazar who back engineered UFO at area 51 runs his car on water.


i generally agree with you, but

Just to be clear, germany has upped their solar harvesting by 60% over the last year. They're not anywhere close to 60% solar yet. It won't be long though, battery and solar energy technogy is becoming more efficient by leaps and bounds. They've developed a way to chically store solar energy, which is a huge milestone.

Ron Paul is an intelligent, logical, person who is not...

...swayed heavily by emotions.

You say nuclear power is dangerous, and it can be... but if you look at the numbers it's actually SAFER than all other forms of power... including wind and solar.


Yes, really. Per KW-hour of energy produced, nuclear power has caused the lowest number of deaths over it's lifetime than any other form of energy generation.



Not counting Fukushima because we don't have the numbers yet, and depending on who's numbers you use, you'll see that less than 10,000 people have died as result of nuclear accidents... in the entire lifetime of nuclear power. The VAST MAJORITY of those deaths were the result of the Chernobyl accident. Outside of Chernobyl and Fukushima, less than 1,000 people have died as a result of a nuclear accident.

2,000,000 people worldwide died last year alone as a result of breathing in pollution caused by burning fossil fuels. 2 MILLION. Where are the protests and the outrage like you get any time there is a problem with a nuke plant??? 30 people will die TODAY in the U.S. alone as a result of burning fossil fuels. 30 people died yesterday. 30 people will die tomorrow, and the day after, and the day after that. You just don't hear about it because it's just part of our lives.

Ever heard of a thorium reactor? It solves ALL of the problems associated with nuclear power...

#1 A thorium-based molten salt reactor CANNOT melt down. It doesn't have to be cooled. If you lose power to the pumps, the reaction STOPS. (In a light water uranium reactor, you have to physically stop the reaction and you have to keep cooling the pile even after the reaction stops. Not with a thorium reactor. It shuts down all on it's own and requires no cooling. It's inherently safe.)

#2 The thorium nuclear cycle produces byproducts that are NO GOOD for use in bombs. (This is why thorium was NOT used in the beginnings of the industry. During the war they decided to use uranium instead of thorium so they could use the plutonium produced to make weapons.)

#3 Thorium is ABUNDANT. Chances are there's enough in your backyard to supply you with all the energy you would need for the rest of your life. It may sound to good to be true, but essentially you are pulling the power out of rock. A lump of thorium the size of a marble will supply your lifetime energy needs.

#4 Thorium reactors produced 1/10 of the amount of waste as a uranium-based light water reactor. Thorium reactors burn up ALL of the fuel instead of only a tiny portion.

#5 For the global warming nuts, it solves that problem to. No green house gas emissions.

Is thorium perfect? No. But it's a hell of a lot better than anything else we've ever found or used.

I'm not advocating for gov subsidies or anything. I'm about to start working with a group that is trying to design a reactor that will produce energy cheaper than a coal-burning power plant. If we can make it cheaper than coal, it won't need subsidies and it will be completely viable in the marketplace. This should be possible to achieve too... you don't have to have all the redundant safety precautions and back-ups to the back-ups like you do in a uranium reactor. The design features and costs should be much simpler and more affordable.

This documentary is a little technical, but it covers anything and everything you'd want to know about thorium reactors...


I ran reactors in the Navy back in the 80's and 90's. I know what I'm talking about. Thorium is our future if we can make it reality. (The U.S. Air Force built a thorium reactor already, so we know it will work. It's just a matter of making one for commercial use.)

One more thing...

And this is a biggie. All the nuclear waste we have produced thus far could be used and burned up in thorium reactors... which produce far less waste and waste that is much more manageable.

Chernobyl caused over a million people to die

But you must have been brainwashed by the news media. Don't you know, there is no Ron Paul!

All the estimates I've seen put the death toll between ...

4,000 and 9,000 people. But let's assume the million you refer to is true.

That's still about HALF of what fossil fuels kill in ONE YEAR. And the Soviets had ZERO containment and ZERO safety precautions.

Besides, thorium reactors solve the meltdown problem. And they virtually solve the waste problem. Even the waste we've already accumulated could be burned up as fuel.

I understand how people who don't know anything about nuclear power could think it was unsafe. And granted, if something bad does happen, it can be catastrophic. But fact of the matter is... something bad happens so rarely... and those occurrences can easily be prevented... which actually makes it safer STATISTICALLY... which is what really matters.

Seems to me you've been brainwashed by anti-nuclear propaganda. I'm just looking at the NUMBERS... which takes all the EMOTION out of it.

Nuclear power, based on the number of deaths per kw of energy produced, is safer than coal, oil, solar and wind. PERIOD.

And thorium reactors can make it even safer.



I hate to mention moon base for obvious reasons :) I would dig a base like Space 1999 though, only if I can have my own Eagle with a CD player and a big Ron Paul sign on the side.

Before I read the post...

...and spoil the joke...

I thought he was on batteries!

Still, that ALSO explains why he can keep going and going...

dynamite anthrax supreme court white house tea party jihad
West of 89
a novel of another america

I don't like government interfering in business

What do nuclear power generation and fracking have in common?

Answer: Large government subsidies.

If you don't like nuclear and fracking, AND you don't like government interfering in business, then it seems like a no-brainer that Ron Paul is the way to go, because without government interference lots of things you don't care for will...go away.

Now, I'm not saying that they will go away over night (especially world-wide), but the freedom movement is (it seems to me) certainly your only possible move in that direction.

And in the long run, without corporate welfare, methods of energy extraction and production will either be safer or they will go away. Just think of the benefits of that.

Would you feel better if only

Would you feel better if only the corrupt government could control nuclear energy?

The cat is out of the bag on this one and there doesn't seem to be a good answer anymore. In my opinion, long term safety and protection of liberty is the most likely if it is decentralized.

What is thorium and what makes it special?

How LFTR, the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor, will unlock abundant clean energy stored in Earth's plentiful thorium.


Thorium is the future..

...and I don't see how it couldn't be done without gov subsidies. It doesn't have to have all the redundancy of a uranium water-cooled reactor. It wouldn't require as many special materials as the plant is at ambient pressure. The ore is much more abundant and easier to work with.

People are working on it now. India might do it before we do.

Kirk Sorenson has started a

Kirk Sorenson has started a company to build these (Flibe Energy). Their research points towards being able to make these reactors at about the pace of a Boeing 737. Takes about one day and costs about 200 million per reactor. Thorium is so abundant and it doesn't require refinement so the fuel costs nothing.

It wouldn't require any subsidies.

Ron Paul = Free Market = No subsidy or free pass for Nuclear

Nuclear power CANNOT stand on its own. A true free market would kill it.



You can't get clean in a dirty bathtub.

I don't know if a free market would kill the nuclear industry,

but it might lead to safer design and operation if the subsidies were removed.




Predictions in due Time...

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul