Gallup: For First Time, Majority in U.S. Oppose Nuclear Energy. (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 30, 2024, 06:33:30 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Gallup: For First Time, Majority in U.S. Oppose Nuclear Energy. (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Gallup: For First Time, Majority in U.S. Oppose Nuclear Energy.  (Read 1993 times)
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,270
Kiribati


« on: March 20, 2016, 06:47:20 PM »

Odd really. You would think opposition would have sharply peaked after Fuukushima, then remained stagnant or declined afterwards. Ah well, it's not like new nuke plants are being made faster than the old ones will be closed anyway (even if the public was 90% in favour) so it doesn't really matter in the long run.
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,270
Kiribati


« Reply #1 on: March 21, 2016, 06:36:49 PM »

Yeah, I'd be highly surprised if hippies have anything to do with this (hippies infamously have no way of changing anything, especially the broader public mood). This is the effect of low energy prices across the board making a) nuclear seem a pointlessly expensive venture and b) the "energy crisis" seem less potent.

Like if I was polled, I would say I would be opposed and it's not because I'm terrified nuclear energy will turn me into a frog. The only real way nuclear can be integrated into the sort of grid that is needed in the 21st century are a) non-uranium fission based and b) modular. And really even then not entirely necessary.
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,270
Kiribati


« Reply #2 on: March 21, 2016, 06:37:49 PM »

This is a bad sign. Nuclear power is one of the few fossil fuel alternatives that is actually viable on the free market.

hhahahhahahhahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahahahhahahhahah

I actually laughed IRL, well done.
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,270
Kiribati


« Reply #3 on: April 23, 2016, 12:02:02 PM »

Anyone who doesn't also include nuclear energy as part of the assortment of tools to fight human-driven climate change cannot be taken seriously on the issue.  

Well that's just a stupid statement.
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,270
Kiribati


« Reply #4 on: April 23, 2016, 04:54:54 PM »

Anyone who doesn't also include nuclear energy as part of the assortment of tools to fight human-driven climate change cannot be taken seriously on the issue.  

Well that's just a stupid statement.

Is it?  Germany had to turn to coal after deciding to shut down their nuclear power plants, because renewables alone couldn't adequately meet their energy demands.  

This was because of three factors: the "nuclear phase out" was a badly unchoreographed U-turn rather than a well-thought-out move,  the collapse of the European Cap and trade mechanism leading to coal being effectively aubsidised compared to its rivals and nativist demands to use "German coal" rather than imported gas.

If you want to rely on nuclear for a grid with renewables, the big baseload plants that Germany are killing are dead anyway. If something can't be quickly mobilised it's effectively useless in a flexible grid.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.02 seconds with 10 queries.