3 ms·
1. 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 se
by sesuximo 5y ago
1. 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.