Democratic Primaries

redqueen

(115,186 posts)

55. This is the kind of rational leadership we need.

Wed Oct 23, 2019, 01:07 PM

Oct 2019

if we are serious about addressing climate change, we need nuclear energy. It's that simple.

Thorium is one option. I don't believe he is married to it, he cites is as an example of what we need to look into - options.

We have seen what happens when nuclear energy is banned. We have seen what is possible when it's used as parr of an effort to reduce carbon emissions. We should learn from the examples around us.

K&R

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

60 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Andrew Yang Wants Thorium Nuclear Power. Here's What That Means. [View all] Rhiannon12866 Sep 2019 OP

ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!! Crazyleftie Sep 2019 #1

If you read the article, it explains how this is different from what we're used to Rhiannon12866 Sep 2019 #2

It still comes down to economics Miguelito Loveless Sep 2019 #27

Sorry, completely disagree, ultra advanced fission and hopefully soon fusion Celerity Sep 2019 #5

Holy crap that's Interesting. ismnotwasm Sep 2019 #10

Basically nothing does in terms of er/ei lonely bird Sep 2019 #16

it is superior to all current renewable forms atm in terms of EROEI though Celerity Sep 2019 #18

The key word that you used is "current". Blue_true Sep 2019 #21

50 billion is a drop in the bucket, I have zero problems with that Celerity Sep 2019 #34

Why not spend the money making current nukes safer and figuring out a better Blue_true Sep 2019 #36

Do it all. Any and all options should be researched. Celerity Sep 2019 #38

Exactly. redqueen Oct 2019 #56

Fusion is still decades away Miguelito Loveless Sep 2019 #28

Art Robinson is also a scientist. ZZenith Sep 2019 #29

a profound non sequitur nt Celerity Sep 2019 #35

Au contraire. ZZenith Sep 2019 #39

Wrong. And I simply suggested listening to and reading the postings of an actual scientist. Celerity Sep 2019 #41

I didn't mean to suggest that all scientists are crackpots, for I know that to not be true. ZZenith Sep 2019 #42

I am NOT fixated on thorium as the only or even the most viable solution. nt Celerity Sep 2019 #43

"Advanced fission" is aother false panacea that the gullible masses will accept Crazyleftie Oct 2019 #57

Non sequitur Celerity Oct 2019 #58

We still had tube radios in the 50s and computers filled rooms Algernon Moncrieff Oct 2019 #54

Yang's proposal is reasonable. TexasTowelie Sep 2019 #3

I watched a PBS program on thorium reactors and the important. Takeaway was mitch96 Sep 2019 #4

People's perceptions change as more is known. Blue_true Sep 2019 #22

Safe is the best. And I believe renewables are the way to go mitch96 Sep 2019 #24

Yes, no one can see the future. If we could, what would life be? Blue_true Sep 2019 #25

"I think politics will loom large with energy generation" mitch96 Sep 2019 #31

Why not give it a try? oasis Sep 2019 #6

Exactly crazytown Oct 2019 #60

This would be a boon for India True Dough Sep 2019 #7

I read about that years ago Hav Sep 2019 #8

Worth considering. Solar/renewables can't do it alone Vogon_Glory Sep 2019 #9

The thorium/U-233 cycle is OK, but is not as sustainable as the uranium/plutonium cycle. NNadir Sep 2019 #11

+100000000 Celerity Sep 2019 #13

I totally disagree with you on clean energy, but I will get back to that. Blue_true Sep 2019 #26

Money spent to make nuclear reactors "safer" would be a tremendous waste of money. NNadir Sep 2019 #30

I guess "moonshot" is relative. I have a considerable amount of expertise in the technologies that Blue_true Sep 2019 #40

I provided a link to a reference for the two trillion dollar figure, put out the UNEP Frankfurt... NNadir Sep 2019 #44

... SidDithers Sep 2019 #45

You mixed "investment" up with expenditures. Blue_true Sep 2019 #46

Hear hear! defacto7 Sep 2019 #32

My First Thought Is: What Happens If Terrorists Attack A Thorium Plant? DrFunkenstein Sep 2019 #12

Oh please... NNadir Sep 2019 #14

These concerns are representative of very, very, very, very bad thinking. NNadir Sep 2019 #15

Well stated and thank you for all your posts. Our time is quickly running out and near term c-rational Oct 2019 #52

We like our CANDU reactors here in Ontario... SidDithers Sep 2019 #17

As you should! Devil Child Sep 2019 #20

Sensible policy. Too much irrational fear surrounding nuclear power. Devil Child Sep 2019 #19

You are all lemmings hoping for a magical panacea Crazyleftie Sep 2019 #23

It seems much of the main argument comes from a statement defacto7 Sep 2019 #33

Do some research please. Crazyleftie Oct 2019 #47

That's exactly the kind of answer I've come to expect defacto7 Oct 2019 #48

fyi Crazyleftie Oct 2019 #49

fyi Crazyleftie Oct 2019 #50

Backers overstate benefits struggle4progress Sep 2019 #37

Proponents of nuclear power don't account for the nuclear waste from PRODUCING nuclear fuel. DetlefK Oct 2019 #51

Earth needs at least 880 plants; it's currently got 400+ and has NO chance of beating the ancianita Oct 2019 #53

This is the kind of rational leadership we need. redqueen Oct 2019 #55

Excellent! Sherman A1 Oct 2019 #59