3 ms·
>So I want to make it clear that you can think nuclear is expensive and too slow but still be in this camp. This camp is just believes that you shouldn't remove
by pydry 4y ago
>So I want to make it clear that you can think nuclear is expensive and too slow but still be in this camp. This camp is just believes that you shouldn't remove a zero carbon emitter from the table. Why tie a hand behind your back? You don't have to use that hand, but it may come in handy every once in awhile.
I want this "hand tied behind our back" for 3 reasons:
* It inefficiently consumes public money earmarked for fighting climate change because it demands lavish subsidies.
* Nobody builds it because they give a damn about the climate. The government is keen on it exclusively coz it shares costs with the military industrial complex.
* They refuse to pay for > 0.1% of their own insurance while running massive PR campaigns telling the public how misinformed it is about the risks.
So yeah, as far as I am concerned it needs to die.
- antonvs 4y agoPlus... * Humans are just not competent or trustworthy enough in general to run larger numbers of these plants safely in the long term. The excuses you hear when accidents, natural disasters, or wars happen are the point: we can't reliably guard against those scenarios, so we'd really just be committing to creating more and more Chernobyls and Fukushimas around the world as time goes on. In fact all of your bullets are in a sense a consequence of this point: they're a result of people trying to maximize profit with a minimum level of care for the consequences.