https://rdrama.net/post/54628/ice-cold/1603734?context=8#context
This entire argument is a framework for beating the shit out of this brand of rightoid.
"What about the nuclear" rightoid dunked: a template for shutting these r-slurs down
- 93
- 7
Top Poster of the Day:
asshole
Current Registered Users: 25,914
BROWSE EFFORTPOSTS
SITE GUIDE
HOLES
PING GROUPS
Live commit: 016bdb9
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Because of regulation passed by the government lobbied for by fossil fuel companies
Wake me up when there's a point I have to turn my brain on for
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
You don't actually understand what the argument was over.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I went off the post title, and if its a bad post title that's not my problem
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
"What about the nuclear" is a performative argument rightoids make that suggests "the liberals" are why we don't build new plants.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I agree that argument is dumb because both republicans and democrats are beholden to the same corpoate interests, in this case fossil fuel companies
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Ya nobody disagrees, my only point is republicans are not pro nuclear and the only reason they invoke it is to pretend it's actually the liberals holding nuclear back.
Republican policy around nuclear is actually more hostile to nuclear energy.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Outside of even repub policy the only reason rightoids give a shit about nuclear is cuz they think its a way to act like theyre above leftoids when it comes to renewables. If their dreams of no more green energy came to pass theyd double down on how great oil is rather than ever suggest build a new nuke plant.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
No, for a lot of people it's because intermittent renewables suck butt and nuclear energy actually works. France built out a huge reactor fleet for energy independence in the late 70's. They didn't even care about air pollution or CO2. Germany built out wind & solar to 'go green' and their grid is super expensive, they're dependent on Russian gas to back it up, and their average emissions are still super high.
https://app.electricitymap.org/map
Germany's doing surprisingly well today.
The only countries that are even remotely low in lifecycle CO2 emissions are countries with a shitload of hydro and/or nuclear. (Or Iceland w/ geothermal, or a couple countries with a shitload of hydro that can use it as a massive battery w/ some wind or solar in geographically ideal locations).
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
As a demographic Republican voters have been historically been less hostile towards nuclear energy. Even as recent as 2019:
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Republican voters but republican policy is more hostile, just not in a direct way.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It doesn't get any real support from either party, but the Democratic party has historically opposed nuclear energy, including cancelling the breeder program. They've only recently changed position on it in the last two years.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Read that sentence back to yourself and try to come back with something actually coherent.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Pizza has been btfo so many times, I lost count.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
What was I wrong about?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
It's not just that, it's quite a few different things including what
@pizzashill mentioned:
https://whatisnuclear.com/economics.html
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The link agrees with me
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Yes, but it also mentions gas prices.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Yes, excessive regulation prevents nuclear from being competitive with fracking
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It's not a simple topic, and this sort of depends on how much you value cheap energy vs. safety. If we want fossil fuels to be as safe and non-destructive to the environment as nuclear energy (as it currently is), it would probably become very uncompetitive compared to even current nuclear.
Of course fossil fuels are necessary for wind & solar to function, so that's not happening.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Nuclear is cheap, safe, reliable, better than basically everything else, ect. We just tacked on unnecessary regulation to make opening new plants de-facto impossible
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Nuclear is literally not cost competitive with fossil fuels.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Yes, because of unnecessary regulation
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
You just want another chernoble, which is exactly what putin wants
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Communists misusing something is just communists being r-slurred as usual.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context