4 ms·
Anyone claiming that we could be 100% non-nuclear non-CO2 is completely delusional. There are only a few tiny examples (like Greenland) that have sufficiently b
by tomp 4y ago
Anyone claiming that we could be 100% non-nuclear non-CO2 is completely delusional. There are only a few tiny examples (like Greenland) that have sufficiently bizarre local sources of energy. And that’s not even taking into account plastics, fertiliser etc.
The price of this delusion is being paid right now: impeding famine, energy costs exploding, Europe financing Russian war in Europe.
The goal was “clean abundant energy” but the green movement focused on clean to the detriment of abundant…
- lesuorac 4y ago> sufficiently bizarre local sources of energy What's this bizarre local source of energy that Greenland has that apparently nobody else does? There's water and fossil fuels in the rest of the world too ... https://www.worldometers.info/electricity/greenland-electricity/ https://www.worldometers.info/electricity/greenland-electric...
- tomp 4y agoOops Greenland was wrong, I meant Iceland.
- lesuorac 4y agoWell I'm pretty late at this point but what I was trying to get at is really w/e another country has the US has as well. There's fault zones, hot springs, fossil fuels, water, sun, wind, etc in the US. If your house has radon gas then you also have uranium.
- wewxjfq 4y ago> Anyone claiming that we could be 100% non-nuclear non-CO2 is completely delusional Not even half as delusional as the pro-nuclear power talk here, where every argument in favor goes, no matter how outlandish, unrealistic, or flat out wrong.