5 ms·

If you mean the public, I'd expect a lot of people, if it were presented right, considering how often the cost of energy comes up in political discussion If yo

by dabber 3y ago

If you mean the public, I'd expect a lot of people, if it were presented right, considering how often the cost of energy comes up in political discussion If you mean congress, I think the more important questions are - who would lobby for it? - who would lobby against it?

mc32 3y ago
Hard to say. The public is divided. Even environmentalists are divided. Some follow the old misinformed guard led by ms. Fonda and you have some more new throwback environmentalists behind nuclear. It really sticks is my craw that a misinformed but activist actress can torpedo an industry for half a century.
- kwhitefoot 3y ago
  The industry and governments of the time torpedoed itself by insisting on secrecy and, especially in the case of the UK, doing stupid things like building the reactors on SSSIs (sites of special scientific interest, for instance Torness) instead of building them near where the power was needed. As someone else said in this discussion: presented properly many people would vote for nuclear power. However, you need to have some substance to the presentation too.
robertlagrant 3y ago
GreenPeace has a lot of content on their website[0] with questionable anti-nuclear power content. They have been a force for decades for anti-nuclear content, when renewables were in a hilariously worse state than they are today. [0] https://www.greenpeace.org.uk/challenges/nuclear-power https://www.greenpeace.org.uk/challenges/nuclear-power
- pfdietz 3y ago
  Greenpeace had the unmitigated gall to be correct. For this, some people can never forgive them. Amory Lovins is another example of this phenomenon.
  - Turing_Machine 3y ago
    Greenpeace cofounder Patrick Moore not only admits that he was wrong about nuclear power, he is now actively pro-nuclear. https://www.politico.com/story/2008/03/why-a-greenpeace-co-founder-went-nuclear-008835 https://www.politico.com/story/2008/03/why-a-greenpeace-co-f...
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - pfdietz 3y ago
      That's a story from 2008. The case for nuclear had not so completely fallen apart at that point. But since then PV has become an order of magnitude less expensive, and the "nuclear renaissance" has so spectacularly flamed out in the US. Moore's claim that replacement of fossil fuels would require nuclear is at this point objectively wrong. I mean, it was unproven then and disproven now.
      - robertlagrant 3y ago
        It would be good to hear some evidence of why you think it's disproven. And the topic of this thread is what lobbying has prevented said nuclear renaissance. You can't use the result of lobbying to prove that the assumptions behind the lobbying were correct.
        pfdietz 3y ago
        Renewables and storage are cheap enough that a 100% renewably powered world economy is possible. And they would be cheaper than nuclear in most places. The objections to this now are mostly "but it hasn't been done yet", which is the last ditch stand of the passive-aggressive denialist (and hypocrite, if that person says nuclear could do it.)
        robertlagrant 3y ago
        > Renewables and storage are cheap enough that a 100% renewably powered world economy is possible. And they would be cheaper than nuclear in most places. How do you know this? Other than for new designs, nuclear/coal/gas costs and performance are well understood in because we've done them for 50+ years. > The objections to this now are mostly "but it hasn't been done yet", which is the last ditch stand of the passive-aggressive denialist (and hypocrite, if that person says nuclear could do it.) This just seems to be ad hominem stuff. Claiming something that hasn't been done as fact is an obvious problem. Attacking the people who say it rather than what's said is, well. Ad hominem, as I say.

by dabber 3y ago

mc32 3y ago

Hard to say. The public is divided. Even environmentalists are divided. Some follow the old misinformed guard led by ms. Fonda and you have some more new throwback environmentalists behind nuclear. It really sticks is my craw that a misinformed but activist actress can torpedo an industry for half a century.

kwhitefoot 3y ago
The industry and governments of the time torpedoed itself by insisting on secrecy and, especially in the case of the UK, doing stupid things like building the reactors on SSSIs (sites of special scientific interest, for instance Torness) instead of building them near where the power was needed. As someone else said in this discussion: presented properly many people would vote for nuclear power. However, you need to have some substance to the presentation too.

robertlagrant 3y ago

GreenPeace has a lot of content on their website[0] with questionable anti-nuclear power content. They have been a force for decades for anti-nuclear content, when renewables were in a hilariously worse state than they are today. [0] https://www.greenpeace.org.uk/challenges/nuclear-power https://www.greenpeace.org.uk/challenges/nuclear-power

pfdietz 3y ago
Greenpeace had the unmitigated gall to be correct. For this, some people can never forgive them. Amory Lovins is another example of this phenomenon.
- Turing_Machine 3y ago
  Greenpeace cofounder Patrick Moore not only admits that he was wrong about nuclear power, he is now actively pro-nuclear. https://www.politico.com/story/2008/03/why-a-greenpeace-co-founder-went-nuclear-008835 https://www.politico.com/story/2008/03/why-a-greenpeace-co-f...
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - pfdietz 3y ago
    That's a story from 2008. The case for nuclear had not so completely fallen apart at that point. But since then PV has become an order of magnitude less expensive, and the "nuclear renaissance" has so spectacularly flamed out in the US. Moore's claim that replacement of fossil fuels would require nuclear is at this point objectively wrong. I mean, it was unproven then and disproven now.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      It would be good to hear some evidence of why you think it's disproven. And the topic of this thread is what lobbying has prevented said nuclear renaissance. You can't use the result of lobbying to prove that the assumptions behind the lobbying were correct.
      - pfdietz 3y ago
        Renewables and storage are cheap enough that a 100% renewably powered world economy is possible. And they would be cheaper than nuclear in most places. The objections to this now are mostly "but it hasn't been done yet", which is the last ditch stand of the passive-aggressive denialist (and hypocrite, if that person says nuclear could do it.)
        robertlagrant 3y ago
        > Renewables and storage are cheap enough that a 100% renewably powered world economy is possible. And they would be cheaper than nuclear in most places. How do you know this? Other than for new designs, nuclear/coal/gas costs and performance are well understood in because we've done them for 50+ years. > The objections to this now are mostly "but it hasn't been done yet", which is the last ditch stand of the passive-aggressive denialist (and hypocrite, if that person says nuclear could do it.) This just seems to be ad hominem stuff. Claiming something that hasn't been done as fact is an obvious problem. Attacking the people who say it rather than what's said is, well. Ad hominem, as I say.