Hacker News Reader

Comment by pavlov | Hacker News Reader

If by now you don’t know enough about this topic to form any kind of opinion on whether humans are responsible for climate change, you have chosen to intentionally ignore the scientific community.

Building more nuclear power is good, but it can’t be the only solution because it’s very expensive and takes so long to ramp up. Projects in the West have been decades behind schedule. And it’s far from given Republicans would support it.

Why don’t Republicans take the initiative and get Democrats behind a national plan for more nuclear? Because their voters don’t care. So why would they support such a Democratic initiative?

It’s a weird assumption that Republicans are somehow just waiting to do the right thing, if only Democrats would come to them with a plan. It’s never worked like that.

View on HN

From wikipedia:

In the USA in April 2023 a Gallup poll had nuclear support at 54%, the highest level since 2012.[54] In August 2023 Pew Research Center conducted a survey which found that 57% of Americans favor more nuclear power plants. This is up from 43% in 2020. Support for nuclear power has increased among both Democrats and Republicans. However, Americans are still more likely to favor solar and wind power than nuclear power.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_on_nuclear_issu...

Public opinion changes if you ask someone if they want a Nuclear plant next to their house.

Nuclear is extremely expensive so if you poll on the cost of energy you will also have a different outcome.

True. Nevertheless, if one believes in what many environmentalists and scientists say they believe, and one understands math, one must also support an immediate and massive expansion of nuclear power -- on their front lawns, if need be. The fact they do not is suspicious.

I have this intuition that the support is not real, I can’t justify the position but i strongly suspect the expression of support would almost entirely evaporate in the face of plans to actually build a nuclear facility in any given town.

I guess I’m skeptical of the hypothetical support people claim when they have no skin in the game (I.e. no local construction plans and it’s currently obvious that no plans are possible anytime soon)

On a personal level I’ve felt pro-nuclear most of my life, it’s just in the last few years I’ve become, not anti nuclear but skeptical I suppose. I just can’t see a cost benefit in today’s world given the other options available.

That is a fair analysis and a fair opinion to hold. Does this mean you do not believe in one or more of the more apocalyptic climate scenarios? Because if you do, but not in the need for an immediate and massive expansion of nuclear power, you may benefit from further research on the math around world energy production and consumption.

I know enough about what you call the scientific community writ large, and the scientific method, and the specific people who call themselves climate scientists to say that a) I don't pay very much attention to science unless it's falsifiable, b) there is no consensus on which climate models by which environmentalists have predictive value, c) the IPCC has been consistently wrong in its predictions for as long as I've been reading them, and d) that science is not decided by a majority vote.

It's pretty easy to figure out whether or not Republicans might support an immediate and massive expansion of nuclear power. Since you don't sound like you tolerate Republicans, let alone like you are on speaking terms with enough of them that you could ask, I'd recommend you consult some polls of Republicans on the question. According to one study by Pew, 2/3rds of them support the construction of new nuclear plants. Which is to say, Republicans are more likely to support what you call the right thing than Democrats.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/08/18/growing-s...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com