I actually hope Gabbards runs 3rd-party

[NNadir]

55. Yes, both statements are true.

And no, Sanders is not the only candidate who is against nuclear power.

Opposing nuclear power is our equivalent of creationism.

The difference between Sanders and other candidates is, 1) Sanders worked to and succeeded at making his state dependent on dangerous fossil fuels.

Secondly, Sanders has not expressed a new idea on energy in half a century and shows no flexibility of thought.

Opposing nuclear energy kills people.
Nuclear power saves lives.

Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power (Pushker A. Kharecha* and James E. Hansen Environ. Sci. Technol., 2013, 47 (9), pp 4889–4895
_
Vermont Leads the US in Wood Stove Emissions

While Sanders has carried on for decades about how dangerous (?) nuclear power is, seven million people die each year from air pollution, slightly less than half of which involves burning biomass, something that kills people in Vermont.

There has been a worldwide effort to phase out nuclear power, because of the extremely ignorant belief that nuclear power is "dangerous" lead by people with thinking as poor as that of Sanders with his active participation in this stupidity.

A nuclear plant in his state operated for decades. How dangerous was it? How many people were killed by its operations?

I follow the carbon dioxide concentrations measured at Mauna Loa weekly, and have done so for years.

For the first time in recorded history, we have reached an annual increase rate of 2.4 ppm/year of the dangerous fossil fuel waste carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Here is the data from the 2018 IEA World Energy Outlook (the 2019 version will be published on November 13 of this year):

In this century, world energy demand grew by 164.83 exajoules to 584.95 exajoules.

In this century, world gas demand grew by 43.38 exajoules to 130.08 exajoules.

In this century, the use of petroleum grew by 32.03 exajoules to 185.68 exajoules.

In this century, the use of coal grew by 60.25 exajoules to 157.01 exajoules.

In this century, the solar, wind, geothermal, and tidal energy on which people so cheerfully have bet the entire planetary atmosphere, stealing the future from all future generations, grew by 8.12 exajoules to 10.63 exajoules.

10.63 exajoules is under 2% of the world energy demand.

2018 Edition of the World Energy Outlook Table 1.1 Page 38 (I have converted MTOE in the original table to the SI unit exajoules in this text.)

Bernie Sanders will not be moved by these facts, although facts matter.

My candidate nominally opposes nuclear power, but she has a demonstrated history of being moved by facts.

The fact is that rote opposition to nuclear power is a crime against humanity, a crime against all future generations.

Listen: In 1970 both Bernie Sanders and I opposed nuclear power. We both thought ourselves, I suppose, "Campus radicals." The difference between us is that I devoted my life to the study of energy, and he devoted his life to repeating the same bullshit slogans.

I have no use for him whatsoever. People will die in Vermont in the next few weeks from air pollution; how many I can't say, but worldwide 19,000 will die today from it, half from burning "renewable" biomass. That's 130 in the next ten minutes.

Nothing about these facts will move Bernie Sanders. He will still continuously issue the absurd and unsupportable argument that nuclear power is "dangerous." Compared to what?

I hope I make myself perfectly clear.