51 ms·

> Unfortunately, the best replacement we've had to coal up until now (nuclear) has been unjustly demonized by many of the same people that claim to be most conc

> Unfortunately, the best replacement we've had to coal up until now (nuclear) has been unjustly demonized by many of the same people that claim to be most concerned about global warming. You cannot fix the issue with a change of paradigm, switching from fossil fuels to nuclear will not fix climate change simply because if we switched all plant to nuclear overnight we would run out of fuel in a matter of decades. The only solution is obvious and it is a decrease of energy use to sustainable levels. Do not consume more than what we can sustainably produce is the only possible way. This means a drastic reduction of population which has only been possible due to a prolonged lifestyle of overconsumption and it will happen whether we want it or not.

trashtester 8y ago
If we can postpone the problem by decades, I would consider that a huge win. Maybe we could control fusion by then. Also, nuclear plays fairly well with renewable energy sources, many of which are also getting cheaper (especially solar). If we take global warming serously, I see absolutely no reason that we should continue to burn coal, except that it is a bit cheaper than nuclear given the current safety regulations for nuclear. Let's agree to ban coal, and then we can discuss to what extent we should add nuclear energy capacity to replace at least some of it. As for reducing the population, I'm curious about how exactly you think we could achieve that?