Tugger wrote:pune wrote:Tugger wrote:And to address the idea that nuclear is terrible for having "government assistance", one can always look to how much goes to renewable energy. This article is so over the top it is almost funny. It is about the costs in the Build Back Better legislation. Definitely unhinged but if one can be unhinged against nuclear, one can also be unhinged about renewables.
https://www.shorenewsnetwork.com/2021/1 ... er-agenda/
It's simple, they want nuclear in rather than wind and solar. Doesn't take that much to figure out. It is known that republicans like projects that have long gestation times, the longer it takes, the better it is. And Nuclear the biggest of all, once you have it, returns for hundreds of years even if the nuclear plant itself is decommissioned and produces no energy at all. At the end it would be the taxpayer who would have to pay, not them so what's the harm, right.
And CleanTechnica is simple to, they want wind and solar in rather than nuclear. And they do not examine the deleterious impacts of wind and solar, from disposal of blades to mining operations for dangerous elements needed in batteries.
You need to educate yourself more.
https://www.kochvsclean.com/electric-ca ... hs-metals/