3 ms·

>You're implying this is a showstopper. It's not. It has been so far. Nobody has done it in a meaningful enough deployment to make a dent. My entire point is

>You're implying this is a showstopper. It's not. It has been so far. Nobody has done it in a meaningful enough deployment to make a dent. My entire point is that we willfully did massive climate damage for 50 years to get to today because we didn’t want nuclear. We will still do damage for 20+ years because we’re still waiting on something to replace peaker plant load on solar/wind. People who pushed for solar/wind instead of nuclear are as much to blame for climate change as the fossil fuel junkies for the last 50 years of no effect. At least the fossil junkies didn’t righteously pretend to care.

pfdietz 3y ago
> It has been so far. Nobody has done it in a meaningful enough deployment to make a dent. Nobody has done it because nobody has HAD to do it. If you're still allowed to burn some fossil fuels, it's not necessary. This doesn't mean it isn't possible, and it certainly isn't strong evidence it won't be possible. And by "possible", I mean possible at an acceptable cost. Even you should agree it's possible at sufficiently high cost. I will add that no economy has been nuclear powered yet either (not even France, where most of the energy is still coming from fossil fuels, if one doesn't limit examination to just the grid.)