5 ms·

Do the “no nuclear, renewables are the future” people have any comments? We burned a few decades saying solar and wind are the solution. This set us back great

Do the “no nuclear, renewables are the future” people have any comments? We burned a few decades saying solar and wind are the solution. This set us back greatly in the struggle to reduce greenhouse emissions.

bryanlarsen 1y ago
20 years ago nuclear was the fastest, cheapest and best method for carbon free electricity, so the fossil industry pushed solar & wind as a distraction. Today solar & wind are the fastest, cheapest and best method for carbon free electricity, so the fossil industry pushes nuclear as a distraction.
- adventured 1y ago
  Replacement isn't remotely close to good enough. We need a massive increase in the supply of energy. Nuclear is the only viable path for that. We can do more than one thing at a time, we have the resources.
  - bryanlarsen 1y ago
    Yes, we need a massive increase in the supply of energy. Solar is the only way we're going to get it. We're adding solar at a 1TW / year rate. We're adding nuclear at a rate of ~30 GW / year.
    - SoftTalker 1y ago
      So why is Microsoft spending billions to restart three mile island rather than just installing some solar panels?
      - ViewTrick1002 1y ago
        Because with IRA massively lowering the costs restarting a plant might actually be feasible. The problem is that new built nuclear power costs tens of billions.
      - epistasis 1y ago
        Isn't Microsoft also buying an awful lot of solar and wind and storage? From a single web search just now: - 400MW of solar in Illinois and Texas, Feb 10 2025 Reuters https://archive.is/5x9VA https://archive.is/5x9VA - 20MW of Wisconsin solar, October 2024 https://nationalgridrenewables.com/press-release/national-grid-renewables-signs-power-purchase-agreement-with-microsoft/ https://nationalgridrenewables.com/press-release/national-gr... - 400MW of Texas solar, Apr 8 2024 https://www.pv-magazine.com/2024/04/08/microsoft-signs-two-large-solar-power-purchase-agreements/ https://www.pv-magazine.com/2024/04/08/microsoft-signs-two-l... and that's just the first three hits, there are so many more. TMI won't come online for years, it's planned for 2028, but we will have to see. It was shut down in 2019 because it couldn't compete with gas prices. Microsoft is buying at inflated prices to subsidize clean energy, but solar is also clean energy and when backed by batteries it is price competitive with gas. The news was because "whoa Microsoft is paying for nuclear" not because "whoa nuclear makes a lot of sense." There's only so many uneconomic nuclear reactors to start back up.
      - natmaka 1y ago
        Is TMI up and running? On the other side: https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/microsoft-qcells-strike-massive-supply-deal-us-made-solar-panels-2024-01-08/ https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/micros...
    - TheOtherHobbes 1y ago
      I'm honestly baffled by the persistent irrationality of nuclear supporters. This is a solved problem. The investment required to build grid storage for renewables, the TCO, the scalability, the capacity, and the build time, are all objectively better than nuclear. So what's the real story? What is this obsession with an outdated last-century technology really about?
      - ViewTrick1002 1y ago
        People think it is cool. Spicy rocks make heat. Which was followed by climate change denying conservatives who found their position untenable embracing nuclear power being able to create a culture war issue in debates about climate change. All in the name of preventing the disruption of their fossil assets by stymying renewables. Peter Dutton in Australia which now lost is the perfect example of this with his ”coal to nuclear” plan leading to massively increased emissions for decades to come.
      - mmooss 1y ago
        Any large group is composed of different motives; here are a couple of possible ones: - Renewables are not, or not nearly as much, big profits for big business. They don't require the capital investment of fossil fuels or nuclear, and therefore they don't have the large moats of those businesses. - Anti-liberalism (or reactionaryism): Destroying liberalism is an openly stated goal for which many will sacrifice singificant wealth and cause significant harm. Nuclear is counter to anti-nuclear liberal campaigners of yesteryear (I think conservatives often have little idea of changes since the Cold War era; they still talk about 'Communists', etc.)
  - pjc50 1y ago
    State capacity is a real problem. Often struggling to do even one thing. There's many places where companies are ready to go on renewables but the grid approval isn't. People overlook how long nuclear takes to build. Hinkley Point C is approaching a decade.
  - ViewTrick1002 1y ago
    This seems to be working backward from having decided that we must handout untold trillions to the comparatively insignificant nuclear industry. In 2024 we, as in globally, completed about 5 GW of new built nuclear. Let’s compare to renewables: - 600 GW solar PV added [1] - 117 GW wind power [2] - ~100 GW battery storage Even when adjusting for TWh the disparity is absolutely enormous. We’re talking a ~50x differences and it is only getting larger as renewables continue to scale. But somehow the only technology which is ”scalable” is new built nuclear power. [1]: https://www.solarpowereurope.org/press-releases/new-report-world-installed-600-gw-of-solar-in-2024-could-be-installing-1-tw-per-year-by-2030 https://www.solarpowereurope.org/press-releases/new-report-w... [2]: https://www.gwec.net/gwec-news/wind-industry-installs-record-capacity-in-2024-despite-policy-instability https://www.gwec.net/gwec-news/wind-industry-installs-record...
    - natmaka 1y ago
      When it comes to building nuclear plants China is, by far, the pack leader. However its results are dwarfed by the results of its renewables projects: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-fossil-renewables-nuclear-line?time=2001..latest&country=~CHN https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-fossil-renewa...
- HideousKojima 1y ago
  >20 years ago nuclear was the fastest, cheapest and best method for carbon free electricity, so the fossil industry pushed solar & wind as a distraction. The histories of pretty much every green party in the western world and their anti-nuclear activism suggests otherwise.
  - pjc50 1y ago
    Reminder that anti-nuclear activism started against nuclear weapons and nuclear dumping, and then after Chernobyl the realization that it was possible to mess up agriculture across a continent from the failure of a single plant. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-36112372 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-36112372 Greenpeace spent years campaigning against dumping waste at sea. In a reasonably free market, which doesn't exist for electricity, solar would win handily.. but this is after decades of subsidized development and incremental improvement by Chinese wafer factories.
    - HideousKojima 1y ago
      Anti-nuclear power activism started before Chernobyl, see New Zealand banning nuclear powered ships at their ports in 1984 for one of many examples.
    - CurtHagenlocher 1y ago
      In the United States, anti-nuclear activism predates both Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clamshell_Alliance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clamshell_Alliance and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abalone_Alliance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abalone_Alliance for two examples.
      - natmaka 1y ago
        Indeed, however it was deemed way more convincing by more and more people after each nuclear accident.
  - jayd16 1y ago
    You ever notice how "green parties" are somehow so incredibly effective against nuclear and not effective against fossil fuels? Why do you think that is? Somehow I'm not convinced its the activism holding nuclear back.
- croes 1y ago
  Nuclear energy was never cheap, it was always heavily subsidized. Just ask Joe Kaeser the former CEO of Siemens. He said no nuclear power plant was ever profitable
  - Mawr 1y ago
    Profit is tied to the subsidies, so that statement by the CEO is meaningless. When you say nuclear was never cheap, what are you comparing it to? The impossible to compete with subsidization of coal plants? How can you compete with plants that are allowed to dump toxic radioactive waste into the atmosphere that kills hundreds of thousands annually, but your plants have to go through regulatory hell to prove they're 99.99999999% safe before even being approved?
    - croes 1y ago
      Cheap isn’t a comparison. If you include the negative side effects coal isn’t cheap either.
sebastialonso 1y ago
Never understood the "I'm solar" or "I'm nuclear" crowd. The issue is an engineering problem, not a baseball match. As an system-oriented person, give me a healthy combination of available, battle tested, new and promising solutions, fine-tuning weaknesses with strengths. Go to the stadium to solve your local team/visiting team issues. You are all falling to Big Fossil antics.
- looofooo0 1y ago
  Lets face it deploying nuclear around the world will add other mayor headaches like nuclear profileration.
  - pjc50 1y ago
    Let's ask people what the correct number of nuclear plants that should be built to decarbonize Iran is.
  - SoftTalker 1y ago
    That's happening anyway.
  - nandomrumber 1y ago
    What nuclear proliferation? How many nuclear electricity states are there? 30 How many nuclear weapons states are there? 9 What headaches are those nine nuclear capable states providing, exactly? How has the world been made worse by having nine nuclear capable states? Practically, not just hypothetical anxieties about an unrealised future.
    - mmooss 1y ago
      > hypothetical anxieties about an unrealised future. Preventing nuclear war is just 'hypothetical anxieties'? We should wait for a war to happen and then do something? That's not persuasive.
    - looofooo0 1y ago
      Ok, how many are democracies of those 21 without nukes or have or had a defense alliance with a country with nukes?
matthewdgreen 1y ago
Solar and wind are being deployed in enormous quantities. The technology is mature and marching up the exponential portion of the adoption S-curve. Nuclear isn’t. This isn’t even a value judgement: it’s just a statement on the incredible advantages of a technology that can be produced in factories, vs one that currently can’t.
- klabb3 1y ago
  > Solar and wind are being deployed in enormous quantities. Yes, but that's not what's concerning the skeptics anymore, especially for solar (thankfully - the cost reductions and efficiency gains have been great). Aside from the well known geographical variance, I think the biggest legitimate concern is intermittence. Let me try to turn that into a decent question: What variable other than energy output is most useful in order to compare energy sources? For context, all I've seen when it comes to intermittence is flame war with weak arguments thrown from both sides of the debate, i.e. "intermittence is not a problem at all, we just need batteries" to "intermittent sources are worth a fraction of an equivalent baseload source". Honestly, I've not been convinced of either side, and (if I'm not alone in that sentiment), it may be a problem of education and communication.
  - epistasis 1y ago
    Intermittence is a solved problem with storage, and storage is being deployed at an absolutely massive scale on grids that are market-driven for profits, namely Texas.
pjc50 1y ago
I'll consider apologizing when one of the Google plants comes on line, whenever that is.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
ViewTrick1002 1y ago
This seems to be revisionist history trying to position nuclear power as some underdog?!?!? We threw absolutely massive handouts at the nuclear industry 20 years ago. Only look to Vogtle, Virgin C. Summer, Olkiluoto 3, Flamanville 3 and all other projects. Moorside, Oldbury, Wylfa and countless in the US. Had new built nuclear power delivered on budget and on time nuclear power would definitely have been part of the solution. Instead Vogtle provides electricity costing 19 cents/kWh. Virgil C. Summer is a $10B hole in the ground and Flamanville 3, which is not finished yet, is 7x over budget and 13 years late on a 5 year construction schedule. The true underdog from that time, renewables (and storage) deliver energy cheaper than even fossil fuels.
- melling 1y ago
  Remember that time France went from 7% to 70% nuclear energy? https://youtu.be/1WNjyxeBsWc?si=kVa2qf0uBeFrAyYB https://youtu.be/1WNjyxeBsWc?si=kVa2qf0uBeFrAyYB
  - ViewTrick1002 1y ago
    Yes? That was half a century ago. The equivalent choice in 2025 is renewables with storage. Today they are wholly unable to build new nuclear power as evidenced by Flamanville 3 being 7x over budget and 13 years late on a 5 year construction schedule. Their EPR2 program is also in absolute shambles continually being pushed into the future while revising up the costs. Now hopefully targeting investment decision in mid 2026 and the first new reactor online by 2038. Until 2038 we should of course stop decarbonizing. No point reducing the area under the curve.
    - PaulHoule 1y ago
      EPR was so unbuildable that it could have been designed by Amory Lovins to eliminate nuclear power.
      - ViewTrick1002 1y ago
        It is not like it is going better for the AP1000 or NuScale. Including financing for the APR1400 bid in Czechia again leads to similar equivalent costs.
ziml77 1y ago
Many of us who care about the environment have hated the widely-held anti-nuclear stances. It's a very clean source of energy. Renewables ended up being the focus because they had to be. There was no chance of pushing nuclear forward when the general sentiment was that we needed to regress on nuclear.
- sunaookami 1y ago
  >Many of us who care about the environment have hated the widely-held anti-nuclear stances Don't try to position yourself as the majority voice. Nuclear energy is all but clean and I don't understand the odd push in the last few years to go all in on nuclear even though there was a common understanding that it should not be the future.
mmooss 1y ago
> This set us back greatly in the struggle to reduce greenhouse emissions. What set us back was and is resistance to action on climate change, led by fossil fuel corporations and US conservatives, which has continued for decades. It's a fundamental policy of the Republican Party. Trump is already taking drastic action in that regard; it was one of his higher priorities. To try to blame someone else is absurd, and probably a talking point from their playbook.

bryanlarsen 1y ago

20 years ago nuclear was the fastest, cheapest and best method for carbon free electricity, so the fossil industry pushed solar & wind as a distraction. Today solar & wind are the fastest, cheapest and best method for carbon free electricity, so the fossil industry pushes nuclear as a distraction.

adventured 1y ago
Replacement isn't remotely close to good enough. We need a massive increase in the supply of energy. Nuclear is the only viable path for that. We can do more than one thing at a time, we have the resources.
- bryanlarsen 1y ago
  Yes, we need a massive increase in the supply of energy. Solar is the only way we're going to get it. We're adding solar at a 1TW / year rate. We're adding nuclear at a rate of ~30 GW / year.
  - SoftTalker 1y ago
    So why is Microsoft spending billions to restart three mile island rather than just installing some solar panels?
    - ViewTrick1002 1y ago
      Because with IRA massively lowering the costs restarting a plant might actually be feasible. The problem is that new built nuclear power costs tens of billions.
    - epistasis 1y ago
      Isn't Microsoft also buying an awful lot of solar and wind and storage? From a single web search just now: - 400MW of solar in Illinois and Texas, Feb 10 2025 Reuters https://archive.is/5x9VA https://archive.is/5x9VA - 20MW of Wisconsin solar, October 2024 https://nationalgridrenewables.com/press-release/national-grid-renewables-signs-power-purchase-agreement-with-microsoft/ https://nationalgridrenewables.com/press-release/national-gr... - 400MW of Texas solar, Apr 8 2024 https://www.pv-magazine.com/2024/04/08/microsoft-signs-two-large-solar-power-purchase-agreements/ https://www.pv-magazine.com/2024/04/08/microsoft-signs-two-l... and that's just the first three hits, there are so many more. TMI won't come online for years, it's planned for 2028, but we will have to see. It was shut down in 2019 because it couldn't compete with gas prices. Microsoft is buying at inflated prices to subsidize clean energy, but solar is also clean energy and when backed by batteries it is price competitive with gas. The news was because "whoa Microsoft is paying for nuclear" not because "whoa nuclear makes a lot of sense." There's only so many uneconomic nuclear reactors to start back up.
    - natmaka 1y ago
      Is TMI up and running? On the other side: https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/microsoft-qcells-strike-massive-supply-deal-us-made-solar-panels-2024-01-08/ https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/micros...
  - TheOtherHobbes 1y ago
    I'm honestly baffled by the persistent irrationality of nuclear supporters. This is a solved problem. The investment required to build grid storage for renewables, the TCO, the scalability, the capacity, and the build time, are all objectively better than nuclear. So what's the real story? What is this obsession with an outdated last-century technology really about?
    - ViewTrick1002 1y ago
      People think it is cool. Spicy rocks make heat. Which was followed by climate change denying conservatives who found their position untenable embracing nuclear power being able to create a culture war issue in debates about climate change. All in the name of preventing the disruption of their fossil assets by stymying renewables. Peter Dutton in Australia which now lost is the perfect example of this with his ”coal to nuclear” plan leading to massively increased emissions for decades to come.
    - mmooss 1y ago
      Any large group is composed of different motives; here are a couple of possible ones: - Renewables are not, or not nearly as much, big profits for big business. They don't require the capital investment of fossil fuels or nuclear, and therefore they don't have the large moats of those businesses. - Anti-liberalism (or reactionaryism): Destroying liberalism is an openly stated goal for which many will sacrifice singificant wealth and cause significant harm. Nuclear is counter to anti-nuclear liberal campaigners of yesteryear (I think conservatives often have little idea of changes since the Cold War era; they still talk about 'Communists', etc.)
- pjc50 1y ago
  State capacity is a real problem. Often struggling to do even one thing. There's many places where companies are ready to go on renewables but the grid approval isn't. People overlook how long nuclear takes to build. Hinkley Point C is approaching a decade.
- ViewTrick1002 1y ago
  This seems to be working backward from having decided that we must handout untold trillions to the comparatively insignificant nuclear industry. In 2024 we, as in globally, completed about 5 GW of new built nuclear. Let’s compare to renewables: - 600 GW solar PV added [1] - 117 GW wind power [2] - ~100 GW battery storage Even when adjusting for TWh the disparity is absolutely enormous. We’re talking a ~50x differences and it is only getting larger as renewables continue to scale. But somehow the only technology which is ”scalable” is new built nuclear power. [1]: https://www.solarpowereurope.org/press-releases/new-report-world-installed-600-gw-of-solar-in-2024-could-be-installing-1-tw-per-year-by-2030 https://www.solarpowereurope.org/press-releases/new-report-w... [2]: https://www.gwec.net/gwec-news/wind-industry-installs-record-capacity-in-2024-despite-policy-instability https://www.gwec.net/gwec-news/wind-industry-installs-record...
  - natmaka 1y ago
    When it comes to building nuclear plants China is, by far, the pack leader. However its results are dwarfed by the results of its renewables projects: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-fossil-renewables-nuclear-line?time=2001..latest&country=~CHN https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-fossil-renewa...
HideousKojima 1y ago
>20 years ago nuclear was the fastest, cheapest and best method for carbon free electricity, so the fossil industry pushed solar & wind as a distraction. The histories of pretty much every green party in the western world and their anti-nuclear activism suggests otherwise.
- pjc50 1y ago
  Reminder that anti-nuclear activism started against nuclear weapons and nuclear dumping, and then after Chernobyl the realization that it was possible to mess up agriculture across a continent from the failure of a single plant. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-36112372 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-36112372 Greenpeace spent years campaigning against dumping waste at sea. In a reasonably free market, which doesn't exist for electricity, solar would win handily.. but this is after decades of subsidized development and incremental improvement by Chinese wafer factories.
  - HideousKojima 1y ago
    Anti-nuclear power activism started before Chernobyl, see New Zealand banning nuclear powered ships at their ports in 1984 for one of many examples.
  - CurtHagenlocher 1y ago
    In the United States, anti-nuclear activism predates both Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clamshell_Alliance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clamshell_Alliance and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abalone_Alliance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abalone_Alliance for two examples.
    - natmaka 1y ago
      Indeed, however it was deemed way more convincing by more and more people after each nuclear accident.
- jayd16 1y ago
  You ever notice how "green parties" are somehow so incredibly effective against nuclear and not effective against fossil fuels? Why do you think that is? Somehow I'm not convinced its the activism holding nuclear back.
croes 1y ago
Nuclear energy was never cheap, it was always heavily subsidized. Just ask Joe Kaeser the former CEO of Siemens. He said no nuclear power plant was ever profitable
- Mawr 1y ago
  Profit is tied to the subsidies, so that statement by the CEO is meaningless. When you say nuclear was never cheap, what are you comparing it to? The impossible to compete with subsidization of coal plants? How can you compete with plants that are allowed to dump toxic radioactive waste into the atmosphere that kills hundreds of thousands annually, but your plants have to go through regulatory hell to prove they're 99.99999999% safe before even being approved?
  - croes 1y ago
    Cheap isn’t a comparison. If you include the negative side effects coal isn’t cheap either.

sebastialonso 1y ago

Never understood the "I'm solar" or "I'm nuclear" crowd. The issue is an engineering problem, not a baseball match. As an system-oriented person, give me a healthy combination of available, battle tested, new and promising solutions, fine-tuning weaknesses with strengths. Go to the stadium to solve your local team/visiting team issues. You are all falling to Big Fossil antics.

looofooo0 1y ago
Lets face it deploying nuclear around the world will add other mayor headaches like nuclear profileration.
- pjc50 1y ago
  Let's ask people what the correct number of nuclear plants that should be built to decarbonize Iran is.
- SoftTalker 1y ago
  That's happening anyway.
- nandomrumber 1y ago
  What nuclear proliferation? How many nuclear electricity states are there? 30 How many nuclear weapons states are there? 9 What headaches are those nine nuclear capable states providing, exactly? How has the world been made worse by having nine nuclear capable states? Practically, not just hypothetical anxieties about an unrealised future.
  - mmooss 1y ago
    > hypothetical anxieties about an unrealised future. Preventing nuclear war is just 'hypothetical anxieties'? We should wait for a war to happen and then do something? That's not persuasive.
  - looofooo0 1y ago
    Ok, how many are democracies of those 21 without nukes or have or had a defense alliance with a country with nukes?

matthewdgreen 1y ago

Solar and wind are being deployed in enormous quantities. The technology is mature and marching up the exponential portion of the adoption S-curve. Nuclear isn’t. This isn’t even a value judgement: it’s just a statement on the incredible advantages of a technology that can be produced in factories, vs one that currently can’t.

klabb3 1y ago
> Solar and wind are being deployed in enormous quantities. Yes, but that's not what's concerning the skeptics anymore, especially for solar (thankfully - the cost reductions and efficiency gains have been great). Aside from the well known geographical variance, I think the biggest legitimate concern is intermittence. Let me try to turn that into a decent question: What variable other than energy output is most useful in order to compare energy sources? For context, all I've seen when it comes to intermittence is flame war with weak arguments thrown from both sides of the debate, i.e. "intermittence is not a problem at all, we just need batteries" to "intermittent sources are worth a fraction of an equivalent baseload source". Honestly, I've not been convinced of either side, and (if I'm not alone in that sentiment), it may be a problem of education and communication.
- epistasis 1y ago
  Intermittence is a solved problem with storage, and storage is being deployed at an absolutely massive scale on grids that are market-driven for profits, namely Texas.

pjc50 1y ago

I'll consider apologizing when one of the Google plants comes on line, whenever that is.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

ViewTrick1002 1y ago

This seems to be revisionist history trying to position nuclear power as some underdog?!?!? We threw absolutely massive handouts at the nuclear industry 20 years ago. Only look to Vogtle, Virgin C. Summer, Olkiluoto 3, Flamanville 3 and all other projects. Moorside, Oldbury, Wylfa and countless in the US. Had new built nuclear power delivered on budget and on time nuclear power would definitely have been part of the solution. Instead Vogtle provides electricity costing 19 cents/kWh. Virgil C. Summer is a $10B hole in the ground and Flamanville 3, which is not finished yet, is 7x over budget and 13 years late on a 5 year construction schedule. The true underdog from that time, renewables (and storage) deliver energy cheaper than even fossil fuels.

melling 1y ago
Remember that time France went from 7% to 70% nuclear energy? https://youtu.be/1WNjyxeBsWc?si=kVa2qf0uBeFrAyYB https://youtu.be/1WNjyxeBsWc?si=kVa2qf0uBeFrAyYB
- ViewTrick1002 1y ago
  Yes? That was half a century ago. The equivalent choice in 2025 is renewables with storage. Today they are wholly unable to build new nuclear power as evidenced by Flamanville 3 being 7x over budget and 13 years late on a 5 year construction schedule. Their EPR2 program is also in absolute shambles continually being pushed into the future while revising up the costs. Now hopefully targeting investment decision in mid 2026 and the first new reactor online by 2038. Until 2038 we should of course stop decarbonizing. No point reducing the area under the curve.
  - PaulHoule 1y ago
    EPR was so unbuildable that it could have been designed by Amory Lovins to eliminate nuclear power.
    - ViewTrick1002 1y ago
      It is not like it is going better for the AP1000 or NuScale. Including financing for the APR1400 bid in Czechia again leads to similar equivalent costs.

ziml77 1y ago

Many of us who care about the environment have hated the widely-held anti-nuclear stances. It's a very clean source of energy. Renewables ended up being the focus because they had to be. There was no chance of pushing nuclear forward when the general sentiment was that we needed to regress on nuclear.

sunaookami 1y ago
>Many of us who care about the environment have hated the widely-held anti-nuclear stances Don't try to position yourself as the majority voice. Nuclear energy is all but clean and I don't understand the odd push in the last few years to go all in on nuclear even though there was a common understanding that it should not be the future.

mmooss 1y ago

> This set us back greatly in the struggle to reduce greenhouse emissions. What set us back was and is resistance to action on climate change, led by fossil fuel corporations and US conservatives, which has continued for decades. It's a fundamental policy of the Republican Party. Trump is already taking drastic action in that regard; it was one of his higher priorities. To try to blame someone else is absurd, and probably a talking point from their playbook.