> I'm trying to understand from what you got your snark from. Do you refer to [...] I think GP might refer to footnote 1 in the article: > [...] one could tec

> I'm trying to understand from what you got your snark from. Do you refer to [...] I think GP might refer to footnote 1 in the article: > [...] one could technically replace fossil fuels with nuclear power. it would just be more expensive, more dangerous and slower - so probably only a few billion dead. Personally, I think modern nuclear reactors (that are optimised for safety and efficiency, not for generating nuclear weapons material) and a tad more sensible regulation could make nuclear power safe and cheap, and turn nuclear (together with renewables, of course) into a formidable weapon against global warming.