3 ms·

1. huge bureaucratic hurdles 2. huge political hurdles 3. no ROI and no clean energy without billions of up-front investment and 20 years I think we should h

1. huge bureaucratic hurdles 2. huge political hurdles 3. no ROI and no clean energy without billions of up-front investment and 20 years I think we should have started spending hundreds of billions on nuclear power plants yesterday, but now we have to walk and chew gum at the same time. If it really does take 20 years to build enough nuclear power plants (construction that will be fueled by carbon) we have to make some other clean energy investments RIGHT NOW that will soften the blow until we finish building those reactors.

BurningFrog 7y ago
1 & 2 are political decisions, fueled by "nucleophobia". If it can solve global warming in 20 years, that's an easy win to take. There is no emergency forcing anything faster, and I doubt that it's even possible to find a cure (that isn't worse than the disease) that works faster anyway.
- baddox 7y ago
  I thought it’s more just that nuclear power plants aren’t economically or politically viable any more, since wealthy governments are no longer subsidizing them with their massive and growing nuclear weapons programs.
- class4behavior 7y ago
  > 1 & 2 are political decisions, fueled by "nucleophobia". You say nuclear isn't dangerous because of all the safety measures, yet here you're qualifying those safety measures as mere overreaction.
- aYsY4dDQ2NrcNzA 7y ago
  > If it can solve global warming Not to be pedantic, but nothing is going to solve it. We're talking about efforts to mitigate it.
wang_li 7y ago
Nuclear has huge hurdles and long implementation times because of hysterical anti-nuclear activists. It's not inherent in the engineering. If we care about climate change, it needs to be acknowledged that the activists created artificial delays and those should be removed forthwith.
- bryanlarsen 7y ago
  Even China takes >5 years to build a nuclear plant. China normally builds non-controversial infrastructure 3X as fast as the US, so by that rule of thumb a nuclear plant would take 15 years in the US, and longer if you don't get rid of the anti-nuclear activists.

BurningFrog 7y ago

1 & 2 are political decisions, fueled by "nucleophobia". If it can solve global warming in 20 years, that's an easy win to take. There is no emergency forcing anything faster, and I doubt that it's even possible to find a cure (that isn't worse than the disease) that works faster anyway.

baddox 7y ago
I thought it’s more just that nuclear power plants aren’t economically or politically viable any more, since wealthy governments are no longer subsidizing them with their massive and growing nuclear weapons programs.
class4behavior 7y ago
> 1 & 2 are political decisions, fueled by "nucleophobia". You say nuclear isn't dangerous because of all the safety measures, yet here you're qualifying those safety measures as mere overreaction.
aYsY4dDQ2NrcNzA 7y ago
> If it can solve global warming Not to be pedantic, but nothing is going to solve it. We're talking about efforts to mitigate it.

wang_li 7y ago

Nuclear has huge hurdles and long implementation times because of hysterical anti-nuclear activists. It's not inherent in the engineering. If we care about climate change, it needs to be acknowledged that the activists created artificial delays and those should be removed forthwith.

bryanlarsen 7y ago
Even China takes >5 years to build a nuclear plant. China normally builds non-controversial infrastructure 3X as fast as the US, so by that rule of thumb a nuclear plant would take 15 years in the US, and longer if you don't get rid of the anti-nuclear activists.