billionaire media tycoon and mayor of san francisco. vp @foundersfund. ringleader @hereticon. editor-in-chief @piratewires 
Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
Curious on two questions: (1) Why do you think nuclear has stagnated so much since the early 80s (when capacity pretty much maxed out)? What can be done to shift that? [I'd love a good answer! I've spent a lot of time searching for one.]pic.twitter.com/pomMuNCnvl
do you have the US numbers? my sense is things stagnated earlier here, resultant of general cold war nuclear fears and an aversion to technology that alters the natural world inherent of environmentalists. both views dominate hollywood, so imo the problem is mostly propaganda.
No, I don't have US numbers. The fact Three Mile Island occurred in the US would certainly make it likely it stagnated first here. At present, the growth rates of other renewables (~15% per year) and plummeting costs (& of batteries) make me believe they're likely to win.
The caveat is if there's some super-clever way of reversing that slowdown in nuclear adoption (no good ideas, though I have plenty of bad ones!) Or, of course, if fusion or something like that becomes plausible.
in terms of persuasion, i just think the technology needs to be championed publicly by a politician so we can have a national conversation and demystify this stuff. also would be cool to see some movies where nuclear didn't kill everyone.
I'd like to understand the politics and marketing of how it ended up working reasonably well in (parts of) Canada, France, & Sweden.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
