Ok, we've put nuclear energy in the title above.

I've said many times that nuclear power needs better marketing. Drop nuclear from the name like the MRI manufacturers did. It's no longer a nuclear plant, it's a traveling wave plant, or a molten salt plant- more descriptive and also separates the concept in people's minds from a Simpsons-esque nuclear plant.

"Krypton production facility"? The mascot could be a neon light.

Those who forget the story of Superman's origin are doomed to repeat it.

Yes... is this an American phrasing? I (from UK) would definitely write this as "renewables and nuclear".

I've never heard an American refer to nuclear power as "nukes". This wording is pure clickbait.

Nuclear powered submarines are commonly called "nukes".

It's not uncommon slang in the US to call nuclear power plants "nuke plants." Hell, cooking something in a microwave oven is often called "nuking it," and that's not even the same kind of radiation.

This isn't American phrasing just the original poster's bad title.

No. This is Vox phrasing to drum up controversy. They do this crap all the time.

To be fair, if you clicked through, it wasn't Vox's phrasing but the original poster's.

My bad. I did click through but didn't re-read the headline. Just assumed it was the same based on Vox's history with clickbait BS.

It might confuse an AI, but a human would immediately know because the word renewables is first.

Maybe it's a regional way of saying "nuclear" but, given the highly negative context of actual nukes, I expected a fervently anti-nuclear article. It'd be like an article in support of euthanasia being titled: "This state wants both end of life care and murder".

Nope. It’s commonly used.

“No Nukes Is Bad News for Climate” https://www.wsj.com/articles/no-nukes-is-bad-news-for-climat...

“How Old Nukes Can Help Green New Dealers” https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-09-10/elizab...

Any reasonable intelligence would have understood from the context.

Would make a good test for anyone’s AI.