3 ms·
> Isn't this why we won't get nuclear power? It's always been my impression than nuclear is more financial challenging than technical, it takes forever to recou
by gnusty_gnurc 7y ago
> Isn't this why we won't get nuclear power? It's always been my impression than nuclear is more financial challenging than technical, it takes forever to recoup the initial cost of the reactor and by the time it does, we will want to move onto 'cleaner/safer' renewables.
Does anyone see the contradiction with the leaders on the left calling for "unprecedented action" like the Green New Deal, but then they object to nuclear with the argument that it requires too much government oversight and financing?
- cglace 7y agoI think the problem is that the left has always been against nuclear. So starting with nuclear would leave you without support from the left or right.
- rayiner 7y agoIt’s because the Green New Deal is, as its name implies, primarily about rehabilitating socialism, not addressing climate change. Start reading AOC’s bill, at page 3: https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/sites/ocasio-cortez.house.gov/files/Resolution%20on%20a%20Green%20New%20Deal.pdf https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/sites/ocasio-cortez.house.go.... The whereas clauses spend more time addressing things like wealth inequality and labor protections than the scientific findings of the IPCC. For example, section 4(H): > (H) guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaing wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States; Can anyone seriously look at provisions like this and say the Green New Deal is actually about climate change and not socialism? Nuclear (or technology in general) doesn’t give you a big new stick to for addressing, for example, the declining influence of labor unions, or wealth inequality. Technology is something you typically do with markets and investors. That’s why technological solutions have fallen into disfavor on the left.