4 ms·

Every discussion of energy I've ever seen has had a large portion of people making pro nuclear comments.

Iv 7y ago
Because that's the transition power that has the math and history to back it. Its window is closing though. It would have made a ton of sense in the 80s or 90s but the antinuclear have won: we stayed 40 more years in the fuel economy until renewables matured enough to be a credible alternative. We are not there yet though: intermittence (and to some extent construction speed) still favor nuclear power but maybe not for that long.
- datavirtue 7y ago
  Your pipe dreams Are the actual issue. There is a gaberal uninformed handwavibh going on among the leity that thinks we can power everything with wind and solar. All the while we have had safe nuclear power systems for decades that cannot get built because of your hand waving and FUD.
khawkins 7y ago
The Democrat Party Platform of 2016 does not mention nuclear energy once. It does tout solar and wind several times in a whole section on reducing carbon emissions. https://democrats.org/where-we-stand/party-platform/ https://democrats.org/where-we-stand/party-platform/ If you asked the typical person who's extremely concerned about climate change where we should invest money, they'll answer wind and solar far more likely than nuclear. There are people who advocate for nuclear as the solution, sure, but they're in the minority. Often they're people who don't seem especially concerned about climate change.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > The Democrat Party Platform of 2016 There is no such Party, and no such Party Platform; the document is, as its own title says, the Democratic Platform 2016. > does not mention nuclear energy once. It promotes it without naming it, by proposing pricing in the climate externalities of fossil fuels, which makes all energy sources that don't contribute to warming, including nuclear, more competitive in the market and attractive to private investment.

Iv 7y ago

Because that's the transition power that has the math and history to back it. Its window is closing though. It would have made a ton of sense in the 80s or 90s but the antinuclear have won: we stayed 40 more years in the fuel economy until renewables matured enough to be a credible alternative. We are not there yet though: intermittence (and to some extent construction speed) still favor nuclear power but maybe not for that long.

datavirtue 7y ago
Your pipe dreams Are the actual issue. There is a gaberal uninformed handwavibh going on among the leity that thinks we can power everything with wind and solar. All the while we have had safe nuclear power systems for decades that cannot get built because of your hand waving and FUD.

khawkins 7y ago

The Democrat Party Platform of 2016 does not mention nuclear energy once. It does tout solar and wind several times in a whole section on reducing carbon emissions. https://democrats.org/where-we-stand/party-platform/ https://democrats.org/where-we-stand/party-platform/ If you asked the typical person who's extremely concerned about climate change where we should invest money, they'll answer wind and solar far more likely than nuclear. There are people who advocate for nuclear as the solution, sure, but they're in the minority. Often they're people who don't seem especially concerned about climate change.

dragonwriter 7y ago
> The Democrat Party Platform of 2016 There is no such Party, and no such Party Platform; the document is, as its own title says, the Democratic Platform 2016. > does not mention nuclear energy once. It promotes it without naming it, by proposing pricing in the climate externalities of fossil fuels, which makes all energy sources that don't contribute to warming, including nuclear, more competitive in the market and attractive to private investment.