Andrew Yang wants Thorium Reactors by 2027

Posted on 11/16/19 at 10:25 am

Posted by Powerman

Member since Jan 2004

162194 posts

Posted on 11/16/19 at 10:25 am

Yang of course is an afterthought in the election for the dems but I do think that he has a few forward thinking ideas

I do like the idea of exploring thorium reactor tech

https://www.wired.com/story/andrew-yang-wants-a-thorium-reactor-by-2027-good-luck-buddy/

Of course all of the leftists pile on him for having good ideas like this. We should absolutely be investing research into this technology.

quote:
Yet of all Yang’s futuristic policies, one in particular stands out for its uniqueness and specificity. To transition the United States from fossil fuels to green energy, Yang wants the government to invest $50 billion in the development of thorium molten-salt nuclear reactors—and he wants them on the grid by 2027.

The date to have them on the grid is pretty aggressive considering the tech needs to be refined and the permitting/construction process of said facilities will take years. That being said I like the idea.

That being said the green energy movement has a fairly powerful lobby and their PR and misinformation campaigns are strong. The truth of the matter is that while green tech like solar and wind have their place, those places are few and far between. And the expansion of nuclear tech would just make these "renewable" forms of energy not needed.

This was highlighted in an article I believe I had posted in a previous thread although I can't find it at the moment. I'll post the article again here as I think it's a good read.

The real reason they hate nuclear is because it means we don't need renewables

quote:
Why is it that, from the U.S. and Canada to Spain and France, it is progressives and socialists who say they care deeply about the climate, not conservative climate skeptics, who are seeking to shut down nuclear plants?

After all, the two greatest successes when it comes to nuclear energy are Sweden and France, two nations held up by democratic socialists for decades as models of the kind of societies they want.

It is only nuclear energy, not solar and wind, that has radically and rapidly decarbonized energy supplies while increasing wages and growing societal wealth.

This tongue in cheek jab in the first paragraph is the highlight of the article

quote:
But ignorance can’t be the whole story. After all, the leaders of the anti-nuclear movement are public intellectuals — Al Gore, Bill McKibben, Naomi Klein. They are highly-educated, do extensive research, and publish in fact-checked publications like The New Yorker, The Nation, The New York Times.

Is the problem that progressives unconsciously associate nuclear energy with nuclear bombs? Without a doubt that’s a big part of it. Psychologists have since the seventies documented how people displace anxieties about the bomb onto nuclear plants.

But anti-nuclear Millennials like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, 29, grew up more in fear of climate change than the bomb.

And few things have proven worse for the climate than shutting down nuclear plants.