Agnostic.com

4 2

After 48 Years, Democrats Endorse Nuclear Energy In Platform

[forbes.com]

FearlessFly 9 Aug 26
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

4 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

1

It’s about time the looney left wing idiotic democrats did something sensible!

1

Laughable, as both wind and solar energy electricity are less expensive. Their limitations, being intermittent, can be overcome with energy storage, using a variety of technologies, including batteries. There's no doubt that nuclear can be safe, but the waste does need to be stored for a very long time, or it can be used in a traveling wave reactor, which turns it into lead, and permanently sequestered.

Dems added it to their platform for corporate support, probably. I doubt there will be many sold, if any.

Wind and solar can't eliminate coal. Nuclear can. You don't think people are sold? What people are they trying to sell?

@barjoe Really, my city put in a solar farm and decommissioned a coal plant. Wind and solar with energy storage can provide electricity 24x7, why is a dirty fossil fuel necessary?

@EdEarl That's great. It won't power they entire grid of the northeast corridor. You can't eliminate coal and nuclear. You didn't answer my question. What do you mean I doubt there will be many sold?

@barjoe Few nuclear plants will be sold because the Dems have it on their platform. Why do you think solar and wind cannot power the NE corridor?

Some corporation wants to sell nuclear power stations, probably more than one. I don't follow nuclear power closely, as it and fossil fuels are obsolete. Exxon, yesterday was removed from the DOW 30. Coronavirus hastened that event, but Tesla has been kicking ass.

@EdEarl I am not with you on this. I live inner city, I can't buy a windmill or solar panels. I use electricity and pay my bill. I drive a small internal combustion car, I can't have an electric car. I live in the real world.

@barjoe Don't worry, electric robotaxis will make car ownership obsolete, and power companies will continue to operate, but clean energy is coming, maybe too late, but it's cheaper, it will happen.

@EdEarl I won't worry. I'll be dead by then. Personal transportation is gonna be a thing for the rest of our lives. Electric vehicles are a tiny segment in the US. I've never bought a new car in my life and if I did it certainly wouldn't be a Tesla. When people actually start buying EVs, the Chinese will flood the market. They will sell at a price point that Elon Musk won't be able to compete with. He's not a positive influence in this country. Quite the contrary.

@barjoe IIRC, Tesla sold more cars in the US this past quarter than any other car maker. The Shanghai factory is making about 100K model 3s a year, and about to open another model y factory next door. In addition, they are building factories in Germany and Texas. The Texas site is 2100 acres, about 4.5 sq miles, about ten times the size of Shanghai. Tesla is selling more EVs in China than any other EV maker. IMO Tesla has no competition, but you are right, EVs are few in number compared to ICE cars. On the other hand, they have announced a pick-up, and have about half a million pre-orders before starting to build a production line. Moreover, Tesla is currently valued more than the top three ICE manufacturers, combined.

Some Teslas have been driven nearly half a million miles, and CATL, who make batteries for Tesla in China, say they have a million mile battery. There are about 20 moving arts in a Tesla drive train, no transmission, 4 sec 0-60, 300 miles per charge (almost no maintence), and highest unreal safety record. Best car ever made...Google it.

You underestimate the pace of innovation, development and change.

@EdEarl Tesla is a piece of crap. Go ahead and buy one.

@barjoe Sounds good to me, thanks. I've never been able to afford any but a piece of crap car.

1

One of our last best hopes to stave off global warming, so it's a good thing. Coal burning power kills more people every day than every nuclear accident in history, produces staggering amounts of toxic waste, and is a major contributer to global warming.

Yes but the potential from a nuclear accident could and has been devastating. I support Nuclear but that argument is like Covid and the flu. It's irrelevant. Nuclear needs extreme safety measures.

@barjoe Modern plants are going to be vastly safer than the older stuff. Chernobyl was a antique time bomb even at the time and they knew it, they just lacked the political will to fix it. There's lots of other things needed to get our power grids into the 21st century, but for on demand power nuclear is vastly preferable to burning fossil fuels for same. Granted doesn't look like the US is going to modernize its power infrastructure any time soon.

1

People don't all remember Idaho Falls, Simi Valley, Monroe MI and if course Three Mile Island. There was Chernobyl and Fukashima post quake tsunami disaster. Maybe the fact that people have railed again nuclear energy has made it safer.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:528058
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.