Nuclear was a much more sensible option 20 years ago. The nuclear industry has made the present-day reactors, of quite dangerous designs, operate reliably and very safely. 4G designs that we should have been developing would be passively safe, immune to meltdown.
This is not my #GreenNewDeal. The Dems do no support immediate halt to fossil fuel infrastructure or fracking; They promote carbon capture and nuclear. Promote private profits, not public ownership/democratic control of energy. I say 2030 for zero emissions; Dems "net-zero" 2050.https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1280965773121523714 …
-
-
-
But then wind and solar got so damn cheap and so high-payoff per carbon, that it doesn't make much sense anymore to pursue nuclear, at least until after we've eliminated coal, filled the grid with transient sources, & ran into problems with energy storage.
- Voir les réponses
Nouvelle conversation -
-
-
Ce Tweet est indisponible.
-
Ce Tweet est indisponible.
- Voir les réponses
-
-
-
Dems Co-Opt, then Water Down progressive policies
- Voir les réponses
Nouvelle conversation -
-
-
Merci. Twitter en tiendra compte pour améliorer votre fil. SupprimerSupprimer
-
-
-
AOC said they'd agreed to 15 less years for net zero emissions i.e. 2035? Is that not true?
-
That wasn't in the published draft..not sure if they're made provisions or not since this one: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/109/text … Also, green party historically has had more aggressive climate policies than any other. We need them to at least take federal funding away from the duopoly.
- Voir les réponses
Nouvelle conversation -
-
-
2050 will be too late. Even 2030 is pushing it.
Merci. Twitter en tiendra compte pour améliorer votre fil. SupprimerSupprimer
-
Le chargement semble prendre du temps.
Twitter est peut-être en surcapacité ou rencontre momentanément un incident. Réessayez ou rendez-vous sur la page Twitter Status pour plus d'informations.