Why are liberals so opposed to nuclear energy? (1 Viewer)

[msommer]

So there is nothing more reliable, cheaper or with a smaller environmental footprint than fossil fuels.   Makes sense then that we are still using them

It's almost as if you are responding without reading what was written

 

[supermike80]

It's almost as if you are responding without reading what was written

The article said solar and wind are not better in those areas than fossil fuels.  What am I mis-reading?

 

[msommer]

The article said solar and wind are not better in those areas than fossil fuels.  What am I mis-reading?

I did not reference any article and thus not bound to argue along the lines of whatever a random article said. 

 

[supermike80]

I did not reference any article and thus not bound to argue along the lines of whatever a random article said. 

I referenced the article and thus thats where my comments came from.   

 

[msommer]

I referenced the article and thus thats where my comments came from.   

Good for you. Now you might want to expand on the selection of articles concerning carbon emissions from wind and solar farms as the general consensus is a bit different from what your referenced article allegedly asserts.

 

[supermike80]

Good for you. Now you might want to expand on the selection of articles concerning carbon emissions from wind and solar farms as the general consensus is a bit different from what your referenced article allegedly asserts.

Sorry.  i didn't post the article.  it was posted by someone else. And I read it, and found it interesting that this person said that.  Because others say that as well.  

And the article really didn't discuss carbon emissions, it was more discussing nuclear as an option.  However in the article, it said solar and wind are not cheaper and not more reliable.  

But you didn't read it so that's just the gist of it.  

 

[Henry Ford]

Article from April I hadn’t seen before:

apparently Gerard Mourou, who already has a Nobel Prize for his work with lasers, believes rapid pulse lasers can cut the half-life of Uranium 235 and Plutonium 239 from thousands of years to 30 minutes if we can speed up the pulses enough.  Now that would be a world changing advancement. 
 

https://bigthink.com/technology-innovation/laser-nuclear-waste?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1574434235

 

[jon_mx]

Good for you. Now you might want to expand on the selection of articles concerning carbon emissions from wind and solar farms as the general consensus is a bit different from what your referenced article allegedly asserts.

And maybe you should expand yours.  Both articles look at it from a biased perspective to favor their preferred result, but both raise legitimate points.