4 ms·

How do I vote for similar politicians in the USA? We need nuclear, and we need it yesterday.

anigbrowl 4y ago
Look at the most recently constructed nuclear plants in the USA, figure out who allowed that to happen, and and conspicuously give them public credit for their decisions.
- Tagbert 4y ago
  I think the point is that it has been decades since a new nuclear facility was built in the US so there really isn’t any around to promote.
  - anigbrowl 4y ago
    We just finished building one and are loading fuel into it as I write these words. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33205813 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33205813
  - boc 4y ago
    From today's front page: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33205813 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33205813 > Georgia Power announced tonight that fuel load into the Vogtle Unit 3 reactor core has begun at Plant Vogtle near Waynesboro, Ga. The fuel load process marks a historic and pivotal milestone toward startup and commercial operation of the first new nuclear units to be built in the U.S. in more than three decades.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Look at the recent fiascos where $15B has already been spent and they say giving them another $10B will surely provide you with a 2GW plant, if you just wait enough years more. Or might not. "Public credit" for these massive corruption festivals does not lead to good results.
  - anigbrowl 4y ago
    Then your argument is with the GP about whether we need nuclear power plants.
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      Exactly. We do not need nukes, and we especially do not need institutionally corrupt nuke projects.
    - int_19h 4y ago
      It's a good argument against corrupt politicians, not a good argument against nuclear energy.
      - ncmncm 4y ago
        The argument against nukes is that they are super-expensive compared to modern alternatives. The politicians who make nukes even more expensive are smart enough to get rich doing it.
aliswe 4y ago
More or less these are the republicans of Sweden
- tpmx 4y ago
  Mostly less.

Look at the most recently constructed nuclear plants in the USA, figure out who allowed that to happen, and and conspicuously give them public credit for their decisions.

Tagbert 4y ago
I think the point is that it has been decades since a new nuclear facility was built in the US so there really isn’t any around to promote.
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  We just finished building one and are loading fuel into it as I write these words. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33205813 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33205813
- boc 4y ago
  From today's front page: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33205813 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33205813 > Georgia Power announced tonight that fuel load into the Vogtle Unit 3 reactor core has begun at Plant Vogtle near Waynesboro, Ga. The fuel load process marks a historic and pivotal milestone toward startup and commercial operation of the first new nuclear units to be built in the U.S. in more than three decades.
ncmncm 4y ago
Look at the recent fiascos where $15B has already been spent and they say giving them another $10B will surely provide you with a 2GW plant, if you just wait enough years more. Or might not. "Public credit" for these massive corruption festivals does not lead to good results.
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  Then your argument is with the GP about whether we need nuclear power plants.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    Exactly. We do not need nukes, and we especially do not need institutionally corrupt nuke projects.
  - int_19h 4y ago
    It's a good argument against corrupt politicians, not a good argument against nuclear energy.
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      The argument against nukes is that they are super-expensive compared to modern alternatives. The politicians who make nukes even more expensive are smart enough to get rich doing it.

aliswe 4y ago

More or less these are the republicans of Sweden

tpmx 4y ago
Mostly less.