4 ms·
More expensive?Yeah, probably, because the alarmist message about nuclear has been the rhetoric for decades.I would argue nuclear is greener, yes, than some ren
by sebow 5y ago
More expensive?Yeah, probably, because the alarmist message about nuclear has been the rhetoric for decades.I would argue nuclear is greener, yes, than some renewable sources like wind/solar (of whom the effects to our atmosphere and fauna are still vastly ignored or not documented enough).
Many people focus on carbon or some other element that in vast amounts is damaging to our climate, but forget the fact that animals,birds,and life in general can sustain and even undo the effects of pollution in some cases.
A 0-carbon atmosphere is rendered useless if there are no birds, plants(which by the way USE it) or life (besides humans, presumably).
People should look at the individuals/entities that push for climate _alarmist_ (not awareness, a distinction to be understood) messages and think beyond the political and economic gain that those entities benefit if such messages are to be followed.
- rsj_hn 5y agoI think talking about "no birds" is extreme, but I do agree that covering the planet with trillions of solar panels is not environmentally friendly. The size of the footprint has to be taken into account.
- TheOtherHobbes 5y agoYou're very welcome to argue that renewables are less green than nukes, but you're going to have a hard time backing up your argument with independent research, because the facts argue against you. As for animals etc undoing the effects of pollution "in some cases" - some practical examples would be helpful, because I suspect most people have never heard of any examples that aren't trivial or anecdotal. The whole point of zero carbon is literally to keep the planet as hospitable to life as possible. Your vague argument about... something is the exact opposite of the point here.