4 ms·

> That is trusting governments and corporations to deal with climate change in other ways. Again, that's a false dillema. At best, Nuclear is being pushed as

by nuerow 5y ago

> That is trusting governments and corporations to deal with climate change in other ways. Again, that's a false dillema. At best, Nuclear is being pushed as one of many possible alternative to fossil fuels, and one which has been discarded entailing both high costs (direct and externalities) and high risk.

zepto 5y ago
You can keep saying it’s a false dilemma, but that doesn’t make it so. We are considering nuclear vs not doing nuclear. That isn’t a false dilemma. > discarded entailing both high costs (direct and externalities) and high risk. If you are satisfied with the alternatives and think they are on track without nuclear, that is a happy belief to hold.
- nuerow 5y ago
  > You can keep saying it’s a false dilemma, but that doesn’t make it so. How exactly is the attempt to frame the problem as either adopting Nuclear or else climate change happens not a false dilemma? Are there no other energy sources? Should we intentionally turn a blind eye to real-world example of countries which are both phasing out Nuclear and lowering emissions towards zero? > If you are satisfied with the alternatives and think they are on track without nuclear, that is a happy belief to hold. Again with the false dilemma angle? You might have strong opinions regarding how fast the current phase-out is going, but you can't ignore the fact that some nations, like Germany, are managing to meet their targets while phasing out Nuclear. Even so, Nuclear is obviously not the only option to ramp up energy production to phase out fossil fuels.
  - dmitriid 5y ago
    > you can't ignore the fact that some nations, like Germany, are managing to meet their targets while phasing out Nuclear. What targets? Germany now has an energy crisis on their hands that can't be mitigated with renewables, and they fall back on coal and gas.

by nuerow 5y ago

zepto 5y ago

You can keep saying it’s a false dilemma, but that doesn’t make it so. We are considering nuclear vs not doing nuclear. That isn’t a false dilemma. > discarded entailing both high costs (direct and externalities) and high risk. If you are satisfied with the alternatives and think they are on track without nuclear, that is a happy belief to hold.

nuerow 5y ago
> You can keep saying it’s a false dilemma, but that doesn’t make it so. How exactly is the attempt to frame the problem as either adopting Nuclear or else climate change happens not a false dilemma? Are there no other energy sources? Should we intentionally turn a blind eye to real-world example of countries which are both phasing out Nuclear and lowering emissions towards zero? > If you are satisfied with the alternatives and think they are on track without nuclear, that is a happy belief to hold. Again with the false dilemma angle? You might have strong opinions regarding how fast the current phase-out is going, but you can't ignore the fact that some nations, like Germany, are managing to meet their targets while phasing out Nuclear. Even so, Nuclear is obviously not the only option to ramp up energy production to phase out fossil fuels.
- dmitriid 5y ago
  > you can't ignore the fact that some nations, like Germany, are managing to meet their targets while phasing out Nuclear. What targets? Germany now has an energy crisis on their hands that can't be mitigated with renewables, and they fall back on coal and gas.