After 48 years, Democrats endorse nuclear energy in platform
1–10 of 489 posts
Re: After 48 years, Democrats endorse nuclear energy in platform
#2That’s great, anti-nuclear energy was definitely one of the anti-science stances standing in the way of progress.
Re: After 48 years, Democrats endorse nuclear energy in platform
#3Republicans will use their fear mongering tactics, point to Chernobyl as an example of why nuclear power is bad. Also, it goes against what their base wants - coal power.
Re: After 48 years, Democrats endorse nuclear energy in platform
#4For the uninitiated, nuclear power is actually much, much safer than it was in the previous century, and fossil fuel power plants have killed exponentially more people through pollution than all nuclear power accidents combined – it's just not something that happens all at once so it doesn't seem like a big deal to most people.
We will not be able to "defeat" climate change and keep this planet inhabitable for future generations without mass adoption of nuclear power.
> Nuclear energy is by far the safest energy source in this comparison – it results in more than 442 times fewer deaths than the 'dirtiest' forms of coal; 330 times fewer than coal; 250 times less than oil; and 38 times fewer than gas.
Re: After 48 years, Democrats endorse nuclear energy in platform
#5Republicans will use their fear mongering tactics, point to Chernobyl as an example of why nuclear power is bad. Also, it goes against what their base wants - coal power.
As per the article, Republicans support nuclear at a substantially higher rate than Democrats:
> A 2019 Gallup poll [1] found that 65 percent of Republicans strongly favored nuclear energy but only 42 percent of Democrats did so.
1. https://news.gallup.com/poll/248048/years-three-mile-island-...
Re: After 48 years, Democrats endorse nuclear energy in platform
#6Republicans will use their fear mongering tactics, point to Chernobyl as an example of why nuclear power is bad. Also, it goes against what their base wants - coal power.
As per the article, Republicans support nuclear at a substantially higher rate than Democrats: > A 2019 Gallup poll [1] found that 65 percent of Republicans strongly favored nuclear energy but only 42 percent of Democrats did so. 1. https://news.gallup.com/poll/248048/years-three-mile-island-...
I stand corrected then. I wonder why for a cohort that doesn't believe in science.
Re: After 48 years, Democrats endorse nuclear energy in platform
#7For the uninitiated, nuclear power is actually much, much safer than it was in the previous century, and fossil fuel power plants have killed exponentially more people through pollution than all nuclear power accidents combined – it's just not something that happens all at once so it doesn't seem like a big deal to most people. We will not be able to "defeat" climate change and keep this planet inhabitable for future…
Now we just need to make it affordable.
Cost overruns seem to be a big problem in the industry. The US recently canceled 2 plants, and we’re struggling to finish the other 2.
Re: After 48 years, Democrats endorse nuclear energy in platform
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
As per the article, Republicans support nuclear at a substantially higher rate than Democrats: > A 2019 Gallup poll [1] found that 65 percent of Republicans strongly favored nuclear energy but only 42 percent of Democrats did so. 1. https://news.gallup.com/poll/248048/years-three-mile-island-...
I stand corrected then. I wonder why for a cohort that doesn't believe in science.
Perhaps your assumption is flawed.
Re: After 48 years, Democrats endorse nuclear energy in platform
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
As per the article, Republicans support nuclear at a substantially higher rate than Democrats: > A 2019 Gallup poll [1] found that 65 percent of Republicans strongly favored nuclear energy but only 42 percent of Democrats did so. 1. https://news.gallup.com/poll/248048/years-three-mile-island-...
I stand corrected then. I wonder why for a cohort that doesn't believe in science.
That's a gross over simplification of the Republican view point. Both sides have blind spots. Republicans on climate change, Democrats on other things like nuclear for instance.
Re: After 48 years, Democrats endorse nuclear energy in platform
#10For the uninitiated, nuclear power is actually much, much safer than it was in the previous century, and fossil fuel power plants have killed exponentially more people through pollution than all nuclear power accidents combined – it's just not something that happens all at once so it doesn't seem like a big deal to most people. We will not be able to "defeat" climate change and keep this planet inhabitable for future…
Now we just need to make it affordable. Cost overruns seem to be a big problem in the industry. The US recently canceled 2 plants, and we’re struggling to finish the other 2.
Nuclear is much cheaper when built at scale. Often 3-5x cheaper. Most of the plants built during the nuclear boom in the 1960s and 1970s were built at a cost of ~$2.5 billion per gigawatt of capacity. Note that this capacity is put out 24/7, so it's equivalent to about 4 times as much solar capacity (which typically has a capacity factor of ~25%).
Solar and wind are cheap in terms of watts per day, but become drastically more expensive one you need to start adding storage. Storage costs are typically in the $200-400 per KWh range for battery storage, and $100 - $200 per KWh range for hydroelectric storage, but the latter is geographically limited.