3 ms·
Why isn’t wind and solar politically dicey? Nuclear is only politically dicey due to ignorance. I’d rather one nuclear plant than having the landscape covered w
by briandear 2y ago
Why isn’t wind and solar politically dicey? Nuclear is only politically dicey due to ignorance. I’d rather one nuclear plant than having the landscape covered with huge windmills — windmills made out of materials that aren’t recyclable. Solar is even worse. Nuclear doesn’t affect wildlife like wind and solar.
- bryanlarsen 2y agoSpending $20B for $1B worth of generating capacity is and always should be politically dicey.
- dmoo 2y agoUntil it does…
- pfdietz 2y agoNuclear elicits outrage from customers forced to pay for it because it's so expensive. How do you propose muting them politics?
- kelnos 2y agoI agree that the safety fears and waste disposal issues around nuclear are overwrought, but still: I would much prefer solar and wind farms (even with the downsides you mention) over the possibility of a nuclear catastrophe. Even if the probability of something like that is 0.0000000001% or whatever, the consequences are so severe that it just doesn't seem worth it when there's a good-enough alternative. Also consider that nuclear is expensive (both in capex and opex)! The whole "too cheap to meter" nonsense from the 1950s never came to fruition. I get that opinions differ on this (clearly you have a different take), but that's fine; reasonable people can disagree. (To be clear, I don't believe solar/wind is the be-all, end-all. Base load generation is still a problem there, and neither source is reliable or consistent in the way that something like nuclear is.)