Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Environment & Energy
In reply to the discussion: Table - German power [View all]kristopher
(29,798 posts)43. Again...
It is worth pointing out one thing: this is a progressive discussion forum and the energy policy I endorse is based on energy efficiency and 100% renewables. It is recognized by virtually every independent energy expert as the most rapid, least cost path to a carbon free economy for the US and the world. It is a policy embraced by virtually every progressive that claims the title.
You and the other nuclear supporters on the other hand are trying to promote a recognized dead end energy source that is the least publicly acceptable of all ways of generating power. It has long been a darling of the republican party and in the last campaign was embraced by McCain with a pledge to build 100 new plants if he were elected. While a small number of progressives will accept nuclear power because of concern about climate change, the idea that a progessive forum is dominated by the vanishingly small number of rabid pronuclear progressives is a statistical anomaly that probably rivals winning the MegaMillions jackpot.
When you add to that the fact that the American Nuclear Society and the Nuclear Energy Institute both expend vast resources promoting the nuclear gospel with thousands of volunteers and paid operatives, then we can get a sense of where the probabilities lie regarding whose message is more a product of sincere beliefs and whose is influenced by dark motives.
You and the other nuclear supporters on the other hand are trying to promote a recognized dead end energy source that is the least publicly acceptable of all ways of generating power. It has long been a darling of the republican party and in the last campaign was embraced by McCain with a pledge to build 100 new plants if he were elected. While a small number of progressives will accept nuclear power because of concern about climate change, the idea that a progessive forum is dominated by the vanishingly small number of rabid pronuclear progressives is a statistical anomaly that probably rivals winning the MegaMillions jackpot.
When you add to that the fact that the American Nuclear Society and the Nuclear Energy Institute both expend vast resources promoting the nuclear gospel with thousands of volunteers and paid operatives, then we can get a sense of where the probabilities lie regarding whose message is more a product of sincere beliefs and whose is influenced by dark motives.
And since DP has read at least one of my papers you KNOW I am what I say I am.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
61 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Poor Xemasab... What's the specific *market* mechanism by which nuclear shuts down coal?
kristopher
Apr 2012
#56
An business license that hasn't been used in 6 years doesn't turn up on a routine google search.
kristopher
Apr 2012
#45