> Pretty much everyone who looks at it agrees that nuclear costs more than solar, wind and batteries and is a non-solution to climate change due to cost alone.
So far nuclear power has done a lot more to quell climate change than solar. The world leader for dealing-with-climate-change is France, on something like 80% nuclear. The situation might have changed in the last 5 or so years, but realistically nuclear has always been obviously workable because it has been demonstrated to work.
> If you look at support for nuclear in the US it's noticeably higher for Republicans, who also are distinctly less likely to be in line with reality on various related issues.
That'll be a contender for the worst argument you'll make today; profiling is a very bad way of reasoning when the alternative is arguing from actual evidence.
> I saw someone attack the very concept of "net present value" rather than accept the answers it gave for nuclear investment.
NPV does have weaknesses at assessing long-term infrastructure spending, it tends to favour short-term cash grabs and a hope that something else comes up in the medium-long term. It is a great tool for assessing two broadly similar options but it isn't the be-all and end-all.
> Sadly I have to assume that most of the people loudly supporting nuclear are actually part of the problem
This really underscores a vibe I'm reading in your post that I do not like. You don't seem to want the environmental problem to be solved, you want Republicans to feel bad and mend their ways (on a rather questionable assumption that they are more disconnected from reality than any other group). If you wanted the problem to be solved you'd probably find your way to something more like "Wow, we can get this solved even if they don't believe in climate change! What a great resolution that would be!".
So far nuclear power has done a lot more to quell climate change than solar. The world leader for dealing-with-climate-change is France, on something like 80% nuclear. The situation might have changed in the last 5 or so years, but realistically nuclear has always been obviously workable because it has been demonstrated to work.
> If you look at support for nuclear in the US it's noticeably higher for Republicans, who also are distinctly less likely to be in line with reality on various related issues.
That'll be a contender for the worst argument you'll make today; profiling is a very bad way of reasoning when the alternative is arguing from actual evidence.
> I saw someone attack the very concept of "net present value" rather than accept the answers it gave for nuclear investment.
NPV does have weaknesses at assessing long-term infrastructure spending, it tends to favour short-term cash grabs and a hope that something else comes up in the medium-long term. It is a great tool for assessing two broadly similar options but it isn't the be-all and end-all.
> Sadly I have to assume that most of the people loudly supporting nuclear are actually part of the problem
This really underscores a vibe I'm reading in your post that I do not like. You don't seem to want the environmental problem to be solved, you want Republicans to feel bad and mend their ways (on a rather questionable assumption that they are more disconnected from reality than any other group). If you wanted the problem to be solved you'd probably find your way to something more like "Wow, we can get this solved even if they don't believe in climate change! What a great resolution that would be!".