> That is no argument against investing into technologies that can replace those uses. It never was. It's a suggestion that near-term abatability e.g. 27 years

> That is no argument against investing into technologies that can replace those uses. It never was. It's a suggestion that near-term abatability e.g. 27 years is untenable. Policy and projection qua climate can't hinge on the promise of hypotheticals. It's possible to leverage nuclear more for an accelerated timeline, but the greens keep trying to block progress. Can't have your cake and eat it too is the way I see it.