It’s the one thing you never hear about from the Democratic candidates for president (except for perhaps Andrew Yang): Where in their Green New Deal is there space for nuclear energy? They all want the county completely independent of fossil fuels in the next decade or so, but no one even wants to mention building nuclear power plants.
Now, just in time to cover for them, is Reuters with news of a new study showing that nuclear energy is too slow and too expensive to save the Earth’s climate. When they say “too expensive,” keep in mind that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’ Green New Deal was estimated to cost some $93 trillion over the next decade, or approximately $60,000 per household per year.
— Reuters Top News (@Reuters) September 24, 2019
In mid-2019, new wind and solar generators competed efficiently against even existing nuclear power plants in cost terms, and grew generating capacity faster than any other power type, the annual World Nuclear Industry Status Report (WNISR) showed.
“Stabilizing the climate is urgent, nuclear power is slow,” said Mycle Schneider, lead author of the report. “It meets no technical or operational need that low-carbon competitors cannot meet better, cheaper and faster.”
… and a quick trip over to Wikipedia describes Schneider as “a professional anti-nuclear activist.” Huh … it didn’t say that in the story.
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Is THAT the reason. Got it. pic.twitter.com/lUbMEXQdLa
— Chris Hynes (@realchrishynes) September 24, 2019
We could have been building reactors for the past 40 years if not for certain people.
PS: The climate is going to do whatever it wants.
— clayjohanson (@clayjohanson) September 24, 2019
All the sudden, when we're talking about nuclear, cost matters.
Now do solar and wind.
— Cᴜʀᴛ ᴛʜᴇ Lɪʙᴇʀᴛᴀʀɪᴀɴ (@checkmatestate) September 24, 2019
Yeah I’m sure wind farms will do it. What a joke.
— Soccer Thoughts (@_SoccerThoughts) September 24, 2019
Translation: increased reliance on modern nuclear power will not allow us to use climate change as a justification for installing socialism.
— Phil Adams (@padamstx) September 24, 2019
Well, I guess the only other option is a global revamping of the world economy to socialism powered by windmills and massive solar farms and a complete restructuring of energy infrastructure. We should be able to do that, and what, 2-3 weeks for about $3.50, right?
— TheCableGuy (@llcthecableguy) September 24, 2019
— Aubrey Bear (@NotReallyABear2) September 24, 2019
We have had solar and wind available for decades yet even with subsidies and mandates they only compromise 10-12% of our electricity production. Meanwhile Nuclear is 20% even with the many restrictions on new construction across the country. Yet it's the former we want?
— James (@JamespWeigel) September 24, 2019
Welp. I guess that leaves us with the only solution being world socialism. ?♂️
Or, how about: pic.twitter.com/yzpvRCgtKw
— Attack Lizard (@MingusYaDingus) September 24, 2019
"Nuclear power won't make the weather better. Only international socialism will fix it: report"
— Jake R. (@jaker1419) September 24, 2019
“Nuclear is too expensive, we must instead destroy the capitalist system.”
Top tier argument guys.
— varyar (@varyarpol) September 24, 2019
Let me guess, socialism is the answer. Right? Amiright? Wind turbines are certainly not going to power countries like the U.S.
— Jack's complete lack of surprise (@JonTheTerrible) September 24, 2019
You are not serious about safe, clean, green energy.
— Joe (B) [for Bastard] (@Josef_Lemonovic) September 24, 2019
So you are saying we should have been adding nuclear between 2009 and 2016?
— Baseball Guy from Cali (@baseball_cali) September 25, 2019
We just really hope everyone is too stupid to question any of this: report claims.
— StrangerThanThings (@ShaolinKungFu81) September 24, 2019
Why does the media hate science?
— Lee C Eldridge (@LeeCEldridge) September 24, 2019
Thanks for proving you aren’t remotely serious about the environment.
— Bryan Jones (@bpjauburn) September 24, 2019
"save the climate'
You've all lost the plot.
— Rachel ???? (@RaychelTania) September 24, 2019
Nuclear too slow, but destroying global economies on the outside chance of fixing something on an ever changing timeline is good….okay ??
— William (@LastWordWilliam) September 24, 2019
This report leaves so much out it is absurd for all intents and purposes. Honestly it's fake news
— Big John 23 (@BigJohn2310) September 25, 2019
‘We need to go beyond just thinking about the facts’: Marianne Williamson says to think about nuclear energy with your heart https://t.co/upvG6QVByN
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) September 19, 2019