3 ms·

So because alternative technology didn't exist there was no case to have the discussion and invest more heavily in alternative green tech research, shortening t

So because alternative technology didn't exist there was no case to have the discussion and invest more heavily in alternative green tech research, shortening the time frame to action and reducing dependence on fossil fuels earlier? This isn't about what occurred then, it's about the time and opportunity cost of inaction that was fostered by rubbishing climate science and hiding the research.

ars 4y ago
You can certainly have the discussion, but it would not have helped. We are still having discussion TODAY and it's doing nothing of any consequence. The only thing that matters for actual deployment is how much the energy source costs. Nuclear power costs were dramatically increased due to unnecessary fear. For example solar power needs inverters - but those didn't work well back then. It just so happens to right now technology has finally reached the point that alternate power actually is cheap enough to deploy. So we are deploying it. All the "climate talk" is doing nothing, what actually matters is the money.
- yreg 4y ago
  This is a good observation. It's so sad that we haven't used the best tool we had. We still don't use it properly even now, when it's clear that we are already in a terrible crisis.
- teovall 4y ago
  The fear of nuclear power isn't unnecessary. We're talking about a giant company doing terrible things and a government unwilling and unable to do anything about it. Why then should the answer to that problem be trusting big companies and the government to safely run nuclear power plants?
- matthewdgreen 4y ago
  The massive drop in renewable prices was triggered by government manufacturing support and subsidies. Huge amounts of it here in the US, in Europe and in China. Similarly, the few countries who have massively built out nuclear power (ie, France) did so because of deliberate government policy, not because their free-market economies were chasing the cheapest source of kilowatts.

ars 4y ago

You can certainly have the discussion, but it would not have helped. We are still having discussion TODAY and it's doing nothing of any consequence. The only thing that matters for actual deployment is how much the energy source costs. Nuclear power costs were dramatically increased due to unnecessary fear. For example solar power needs inverters - but those didn't work well back then. It just so happens to right now technology has finally reached the point that alternate power actually is cheap enough to deploy. So we are deploying it. All the "climate talk" is doing nothing, what actually matters is the money.

yreg 4y ago
This is a good observation. It's so sad that we haven't used the best tool we had. We still don't use it properly even now, when it's clear that we are already in a terrible crisis.
teovall 4y ago
The fear of nuclear power isn't unnecessary. We're talking about a giant company doing terrible things and a government unwilling and unable to do anything about it. Why then should the answer to that problem be trusting big companies and the government to safely run nuclear power plants?
matthewdgreen 4y ago
The massive drop in renewable prices was triggered by government manufacturing support and subsidies. Huge amounts of it here in the US, in Europe and in China. Similarly, the few countries who have massively built out nuclear power (ie, France) did so because of deliberate government policy, not because their free-market economies were chasing the cheapest source of kilowatts.