3 ms·
Your characterization of the Heritage Foundation's position on energy is not really accurate or supportable. At the very least they have several articles on th
by jki275 3y ago
Your characterization of the Heritage Foundation's position on energy is not really accurate or supportable.
At the very least they have several articles on their site supporting nuclear energy.
https://www.heritage.org/energy/commentary/time-bring-nuclear-energy-the-21st-century https://www.heritage.org/energy/commentary/time-bring-nuclea...
- dpkirchner 3y agoThere's folks that suggest nuclear energy is promoted not as an alternative to fossil fuels (because it won't actually be built, at least not in sufficient quantity any time soon) but as a way to discourage wind and PV and thus tacitly support the status quo. https://www.commondreams.org/news/triple-nuclear-power-cop28 https://www.commondreams.org/news/triple-nuclear-power-cop28 Of course, this is just one opinion battling another.
- nebula8804 3y agoI guess they know that nuclear is a failed proposition in the US (and everywhere except China) so they can redirect focus from renewables into chasing this bridge to nowhere.
- charred_patina 3y ago> Denying the world access to clean, affordable fuels like gas, oil, and coal is a real problem. This is literally the second sentence of that article.