But be sure to pick the most ominous-looking reactor photo, @nytimes
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I don't take GW alarmists seriously if they refuse to consider nuclear power.
-
You nailed it. Too many people do not care unless all mitigation options are on the table.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
.
@sapinker If@SenAlexander wants to keep reactors afloat he shd back#carbontax. His co-author@SenWhitehouse does: https://www.carbontax.org/bills/Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
surprised they didn't discuss specific new nuclear options like molten salt. Lots of good possibilities
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Too much time wasted
-
-
But we could have been much further along...
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
@EasterbrookG@nytimes - smart people know thisThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Nuclear power is not economical.http://qz.com/94817/the-real-reason-to-fight-nuclear-power-has-nothing-to-do-with-health-risks/ …
-
Who cares, since it's the only tech fast enough to stop climate change?
-
4. Building nukes locks in an obselete economic model that becomes an obstacle to sustainable energy development
-
Sure, whatever. Yet where are the results then? Germany, the poster boy of renewables revolution, has failed.pic.twitter.com/UybRC5zsow
-
Pure derp. Germany massively increased RE power w just a few fiddly tarifs. But real investment is needed.
-
I kinda get that some uneconomical nukes may be best left to die, but killing the most or all is pure lunacy.
-
huge difference between killing existing nukes (bad idea) and installing new solar instead of new nukes (better)
-
I'll gladly agree once new solar decarbonizes as well and fast as nuclear did during 70s to late 80s.pic.twitter.com/0xfOJDNFo4
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
@andyrosebrook What? Solar and fusion are the best ways by far. -
Solar power is the only kind of fusion power even remotely viable in near or medium term.
-
What are you talking about? Like 4x countries are making fusion reactor prototypes
-
Right, so we've made rel progress towards developing prototypes. That puts us a couple decades from viable
-
Not really. Clealry you've not kept up with current fusion technology. Research it then get back to me.
-
Did more searching, found nothing to indicate that we will have large scale fusion power within 20 years.
-
And what are you basing that timescale on exactly?
-
You've got burden of proof backward. Show me evidence we are closer.
- 13 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.