4 ms·
Unfortunately, the problem isn’t environmentalism. We don’t have a renewed push for nuclear power for the same reason we don’t have a carbon tax, which would al
by twoodfin 5y ago
Unfortunately, the problem isn’t environmentalism. We don’t have a renewed push for nuclear power for the same reason we don’t have a carbon tax, which would also likely be effective in curbing emissions & that many environmentalists do favor: They’re both ridiculously unpopular with the US electorate. Maybe the environmental movement shoulders some of the blame in each case, but I doubt if both were wholeheartedly embraced by greenies much would change.
- sesuximo 5y ago1. IMO and, I think, as this author would say, the electorate is voting based on bad information. 2. If the cost of a nuclear plant were lower, I think we’d see more projects despite the electorate‘s thoughts. (Just my opinions)
- j_wtf_all_taken 5y ago> 1. IMO and, I think, as this author would say, the electorate is voting based on bad information. While I wish that were true (because then there would be a solution), I fear that people actually DO know but ... don't care ... > 2. If the cost of a nuclear plant were lower, I think we’d see more projects despite the electorate‘s thoughts. Solar and wind are incredibly cheap (way cheaper than coal), easy (and quick, as you can parallelize) to build ... but somehow that's not happening?
- twoodfin 5y agoI don’t think it’s bad information so much as Americans and their political institutions have a risk calculus that is, to put it mildly, biased against nuclear & its history of dramatic catastrophes vs., say, the slow poisoning from a coal plant.
- mumblemumble 5y agoI think that Americans also know that "nuclear vs coal" is a false dichotomy. A major issue in the 2016 elections was the ongoing collapse of the coal industry. The USA produces less energy from coal now than it did in the 1940s.