Individually alot of his ideas could be good, with proper care and planning. Instead he does them all at once without any sort of considerations, its wild to witness this train wreck.
this post was submitted on 24 May 2025
199 points (99.5% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
6604 readers
465 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Idk how tariffs work but I like to imagine in our economic toolbox they are like a hammer. Can a hammer be useful, absolutely. But is it useful to throw 10,000 hammers at the rest of the world like trump is doing?
I am sure making consideration of climate change impacts illegal during the approval process won't have adverse consequences. When the water used to cool the reactor dries up, we'll have plenty of money and foresight to just pump it in from somewhere else, right?
load more comments
(2 replies)
Great, more power at unrealistic prices in… 2045.
Don't fret, these will never become operational anyway.
Quite glad that America is far away from where I am.
What prevents the approval of the reactors, is it bad designs or just a case of planning permission delays because people don't want a nuclear reactor built. Surprised to see Trump being in favour as nuclear as he normally seems to favour the oil industry.
- they are really expensive
- have a history of costing far more than promised
- nuclear executives have a history of dishonesty, so you need to check absolutely every detail
they are really expensive have a history of costing far more than promised
Because every plant is essentially a unique prototype in a field with very few experienced experts. Building nuclear plants makes building future nuclear plants cheaper and increases the pool of nuclear experts in the country.
Yeah. Let's build one. Oh it's costing more than expected because no one here knows what they are doing. But they are trained up now so the next one will be cheaper. Ah, contract cancelled so that training will die out by the time another reactor build is agreed on.
Sure, that's what has been happening due to the high regulatory hurdle for getting a plant cleared. Compared to other countries, it takes a lot longer in the US to get through the regulatory hurdles.
I think that, because of events like Three Mile Island and the influence of fossil fuel competitors, politicians have been using overregulation as a way of limiting the deployment of nuclear power generation and not simply as a means of making it more safe.
Having an administration that is pro-nuclear would probably help the skill decay issue, if we're starting new plants more often then there will be less time for the knowledge to die out so future plants can be built faster, cheaper and safer.
Of course, this is the Trump administration so how much of this is performative and how much is substantial change has yet to be seen.
The learning-by-doing cycle happened in other areas, but plateaued with nuclear quite a while back.
view more: next ›