> My computer isn't doing that at the moment Your computer was produced using all green energy, using eco-friendly manufacturing with resources that are mined

> My computer isn't doing that at the moment Your computer was produced using all green energy, using eco-friendly manufacturing with resources that are mined in sustainable ways? Wow, it must have cost a fortune. This argument makes it seem like you're fine with people being poisoned as long as it's somewhere else. > It's sane to be skeptical of things that could potentially poison you. Why do I have to explain this? Would you say we are poisoning ourselves by blasting carbon into the air? I would. And by that metric, it obviously makes sense to look at the alternatives, and it seems to me that nuclear is currently the least-poisonous way to power our collective needs. Solar just cannot do it. Maybe on a bright sunny day it can! But it's not always bright and sunny, sometimes it's night or it's cloudy. So you need to overproduce, and store the energy somewhere. Where is it stored? According to 90% of the solar advocates here, in batteries filled with poison, that are produced using poisonous manufacturing. Solar and other renewables are not as "clean" as we'd like to think, and they also are just not up to the task yet. Nuclear is. I get that you're not anti-nuclear, but maybe this is some ammo you can use when you're arguing for it.