4 ms·
I fail to understand the ambivalence not to mention hostility towards nuclear power. If people really believed that climate change was as dangerous as they say
by jbandela1 11y ago
I fail to understand the ambivalence not to mention hostility towards nuclear power. If people really believed that climate change was as dangerous as they say they believe they would be fully on board. Even a Chernobyl type incident once a year over the next 30 years would be preferable to the consequences of unchecked global warming.
- tim333 11y agoI guess if you are a green enthusiast you'd go for solar and batteries and if a skeptic you'd go for gas/coal. So there's a narrow group who like nuclear. Another thing that surprises me is how few people actually cost up different options on reducing CO2. I've given some money to reforestation projects and the CO2 saved per dollar is about 1000 times as effective as getting solar panels but no one seems interested in running the numbers.
- CuriousSkeptic 11y agoI think there was a mention in one of the ipcc reports where they actually ran the numbers and concluded that no amount of terraforming (be it forests, algae, and some other hypothetical "negative" emission approaches), even ignoring economical or technical feasibility, would be able to stop or reduce ghg concentrations.
- eli_gottlieb 11y agoPeople don't understand nuclear power, and there's been a hell of a lot of fear-mongering. http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a40195/paris-climate-conference-nuclear-power/ http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a40195/paris-clima...
- DrScump 11y agoThe burning of coal spews more radioactive waste into the environment than all nuclear plants combined... and prevailing winds bring much of it to North America.