Skip to main content

View Diary: From campaign trail ... Key issue: nuclear power (33 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  so basically your argument against it (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Joieau

    is that it's not worth trying because it's going to fail anyway. Sure, there are plenty examples throughout human history of goals that have failed to be reached, but if we'd never tried anything for fear of failure we'd still be in the dark ages. I just can't accept that premise, at least not for me personally.

    •  No, that's not my argument (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Recall, Odysseus

      I think it's great that they're at least  trying to do * something *

      But seriously, what are the consequences for not meeting the standards?  Since you sidestepped that question, and none were mentioned in the article you linked to, I suspect there are none - which definitely diminishes chances for the success of the initiative.

      •  fewer (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        citisven, Joieau

        pannini makers?

        seriously, don't we need to scrutinize "305,000 GWh" in order to understand what exactly the consequences might be?

        water heaters - i bet CA could generate 90% of household hot water with solar. how much of that GWh would we eliminate if we didn't have a trillion waterheaters running 24/7?

        would people take to the streets if they were required to reduce their electricity usage by 10 or 15 or 25%?

        maybe not, if the trade off was no nukes, no coal, and a more optimistic heart at the end of the day.

    •  The point is that it's going to be hard enough (0+ / 0-)

      to solve climate change as it is, so it doesn't make sense to sabotage our efforts by indulging in paranoid fantasies.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site