3 ms·
Yes and it's interesting to quote the rest of that paragraph, which ends up arguing that clean energy transitions "would end up hurting consumers through higher
by abalone 7y ago
Yes and it's interesting to quote the rest of that paragraph, which ends up arguing that clean energy transitions "would end up hurting consumers through higher electricity bills."[1]
The use of the term "hurting" here is a tell. Yeah, you know, maybe fixing the planet will require a mobilization on the scale of going to war and result in higher prices. That's not hurting people; that's helping our children live on a planet free of nuclear waste and climate disaster.
[1] "Such a drastic increase in renewable power generation would create serious challenges in integrating the new sources into the broader energy system. Clean energy transitions in advanced economies would also require $1.6 trillion in additional investment over the same period, which would end up hurting consumers through higher electricity bills."
- jessaustin 7y agoHaha, this may be the first time in history that nuclear enthusiasts have pretended to give a damn about ratepayers. I'd bet that most of their "$1.6 trillion" figure comes from decommissioning dangerous nuclear plants. We've already spent that money, assholes...