undefined | Better HN

0 pointspanick21_4y ago0 comments

What would have actually helped if Nixon and Jimmy Carter would not have killed and reduced nuclear power research.

And solar and win power were simpy not ready, no matter what Reagan did.

The simple fact is, green CO-2 free power grids were possible, and they were done in the 80s by France.

The reality is both parties turned essentially anti-nuclear because of the backlash in the 70s.

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

ncmncm4y ago· 1 in thread

Clearly you would like for that to be true.

But Jimmy Carter was a trained nuclear engineer. He was well qualified to understand their true value. Or lack of it. He put solar panels up on the White House roof. Reagan scrapped them.

Reagan, of course, was not qualified to understand much of anything besides PR. But did, that.

panick21_OP4y ago

What matters is not what the president believes but what the people he represents believes and gives him votes.

Are we seriously gone pretend things like putting solar panel on the white house and putting so much emphasis on that was more likely to save CO2 anytime soon?

And it was in fact under Nixon and more under Carter that a number of nuclear efforts were stopped and replaced with things that had absolutely no chance of having great returns anytime soon.

I'm not saying Reagan was better, he clearly didn't turn that ship around. But the assertion that if it wasn't for him we would live in a CO2 free paradise because of carters investment in solar is totally delusional.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse