3 ms·
If environmentalists had adopted nuclear as one of the renewables we would be burning a tiny fraction of the gas and coal we burn today.
by afiori 1y ago
If environmentalists had adopted nuclear as one of the renewables we would be burning a tiny fraction of the gas and coal we burn today.
- forty 1y agoHaha as if anyone cared about what environmentasist think. Gaz or nuclear are choosen for reasons that have nothing to do with environment (like whatever fuel is convenient to get for the given country and is pushed by the local financial interests). If environmentalists were listened a bit, we would be using a fraction of the energy we use, regardless of how it's produced. The only clean energy is the one we don't use / produce.
- ViewTrick1002 1y agoThis is revisionist history. We invested massively in nuclear power in recent decades? Vogtle, Virgil C. Summer, Hinkley Point C, Olkiluoto, Flamanville were the west ensuring nuclear investment while at the same time investing in the nascent renewable sector. In total something like a ~$100-200B investment in nuclear technology. The nuclear investment evidently did not pan out. How much more should we have spent? Should we just push through no matter the cost even though we have cheaper alternatives?
- fulafel 1y agoIf we had invested all that public funding into renewables instead of nuclear since the 40s we would have had plentiful renewables decades earlier. Nuclear misadventures had a very high opportunity cost.