3 ms·
Let's get real, nuclear is a solution in search of a problem. It's low carbon, but we've decided not to cut our emissions, so why bother? It would rescue us f
by LatteLazy 5y ago
Let's get real, nuclear is a solution in search of a problem.
It's low carbon, but we've decided not to cut our emissions, so why bother?
It would rescue us from Russian gas reliance. But cost 10 times more and won't be ready till 2040 so why bother? (Plus you can't replace domestic gas supplies with electricity...).
It's reliable for base load, but we already have that from gas so why bother?
- funklute 5y ago> but we've decided not to cut our emissions What? Where do you have this from?
- LatteLazy 5y agoWe've increased our emissions almost every year for decades. A few years back, in Paris, we signed a "you do you" agreement to all decide for ourselves whether to cut our emissions and not to complain if others don't cut them. We're well on schedule to blow through all the ppm concentrations (I think we blew through the 1C rise one last year some time?) It's like this weird open secret where we all agree something should definitely be done, and then do nothing. Like 100 people are a car crash all hoping someone else will get involved or something.