Earlier 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.
After 48 years, Democrats endorse nuclear energy in platform
11–20 of 489 posts
Re: After 48 years, Democrats endorse nuclear energy in platform
#12For 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…
I wish we could discuss such topics without the much-abused climate scare argument. Most debatable, technology-related issues have many other implications worth taking into account. Like grid stability, cost of energy etc. in this case.
But if all you've got is a hammer...
Re: After 48 years, Democrats endorse nuclear energy in platform
#13> As detailed in the Climate Action Plan, President Obama is committed to using every appropriate tool to combat climate change. Nuclear power, which in 2014 generated about 60 percent of carbon-free electricity in the United States, continues to play a major role in efforts to reduce carbon emissions from the power sector. As America leads the global transition to a low-carbon economy, the continued development of new and advanced nuclear technologies along with support for currently operating nuclear power plants is an important component of our clean energy strategy. Investing in the safe and secure development of nuclear power also helps advance other vital policy objectives in the national interest, such as maintaining economic competitiveness and job creation, as well as enhancing nuclear nonproliferation efforts, nuclear safety and security, and energy security.
>
> The President’s FY 2016 Budget includes more than $900 million for the Department of Energy (DOE) to support the U.S. civilian nuclear energy sector by leading federal research, development, and demonstration efforts in nuclear energy technologies, ranging from power generation, safety, hybrid energy systems, and security technologies, among other things. DOE also supports the deployment of these technologies with $12.5 billion in remaining loan guarantee authority for advanced nuclear projects through Title 17. DOE’s investments in nuclear energy help secure the three strategic objectives that are foundational to our nation’s energy system: energy security, economic competitiveness, and environmental responsibility.
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/1...
Re: After 48 years, Democrats endorse nuclear energy in platform
#14For 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.
In contrast, solar and wind tend to be very manpower efficient due to the logistical pain of maintaining something spread over 10 sq. miles forcing investments in reliability and autonomy.
Edit: Messed up wording
Re: After 48 years, Democrats endorse nuclear energy in platform
#15Earlier 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.
Re: After 48 years, Democrats endorse nuclear energy in platform
#16Earlier 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.
You may be surprised that:
- Republicans are only like "20% more religious" than Democrats
- Over half of Republicans believe the scientific method produces accurate conclusions
- Nearly a third of Democrats don't believe the scientific method produces accurate conclusions
https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/party-aff...
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/09/democrats-a...
Re: After 48 years, Democrats endorse nuclear energy in platform
#17Earlier 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.
Re: After 48 years, Democrats endorse nuclear energy in platform
#18Earlier 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.
They were the ones who bought into Malthusian systems that believed that the world would be over populated if nuclear energy ever reached widespread deployment. They pushed this narrative to gullible hippy “environmentalists”, who swayed public opinion and, whoops, accidentally caused us to burn another 50 years worth of coal. Yeah, “fight the man” sure felt good at the time. YEAH!
50 years of improvements to nuclear power has been lost to this nonsense. Everyone today should be absolutely livid over what happened.
Re: After 48 years, Democrats endorse nuclear energy in platform
#19For 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.
The US and other modern economies got the political will together to subsidize solar when it rarely made sense on a MW/$ basis and now it's dropped to by far the cheapest source (if you can live with intermittent power).
Re: After 48 years, Democrats endorse nuclear energy in platform
#20For 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…