She’s right about nuclear.
If you disagree you’re a fucking lib.
This is my hot take, I won’t back down. The socialists who endorse nuclear in America are redditors and turbolibs.
There’s a difference between “nuclear will singlehandedly solve the climate crisis” and “nuclear can be in the mix idgaf” which more accurately describes most people here’s opinion of it.
The answer is actually “We can’t burn a limited resource to escape our reliance on limited resources”. There is no “This depends” There’s a side that’s wrong (The “Nuclear is a solution” side) and there is a side that’s not wrong.
No that’s not being fair. There is a difference between the resources needed to build something, and lighting a limited resource on fire for fuel. Especially when you still need to build the nuclear power plants.
We literally can’t switch to all nuclear right now, if we do we run out of fuel in a presidential term.
Here is the list of total places that don’t have access to wind, solar, water, or geothermal power but does have access to permanent nuclear waste storage:
End of list
That’s before we even get into the notion of reliable and cheap access to nuclear fuel. If we’re going to talk about logistics, we should actually talk about the enormous logistics required for any kind of major expansion of nuclear power that isn’t happening, won’t happen, and for which there is no plan.
Not to mention the fact that maintenance of nuclear facilities is also costly. It’s not a problem unique to or especially incumbent upon renewable energy. The attempts to “be fair” here, are just regurgitating conservative arguments for fossil fuels, except the idea here is to create a gigantic infrastructure project for an intentional stopgap that would take so long to actually build we could also just build the fucking renewable capacity.
It genuinely cannot be overstated how much nuclear is just a distraction at this point.
Nuclear is already in the mix. It’s not doing anything to help the situation. For it to actually do anything to alleviate the situation the pro nuclear position has to involve fucking sci fi technology and totally unworkable political projects. You are not getting a permanent nuclear waste storage facility and Thorium will not solve the energy crisis, therefore nuclear is not a panacea.
Nuclear is a limited fuel source regulated by the most captured body in the entire universe. No climate solution can possibly involve leaning heavily into it. It just can’t. Just build renewable fucking energy. We don’t need to start 30 year long projects as stepping stones to converting the energy industry, that’s a time horizon that’s entirely out of step with reality, especially when you also expect and require the long projects to use sci fi technology that does not exist and for their reliable use have to finish political hot potatoes that the US has solidly avoided doing anything about for almost 100 years
She’s right about nuclear. If you disagree you’re a fucking lib. This is my hot take, I won’t back down. The socialists who endorse nuclear in America are redditors and turbolibs.
There’s a difference between “nuclear will singlehandedly solve the climate crisis” and “nuclear can be in the mix idgaf” which more accurately describes most people here’s opinion of it.
deleted by creator
The answer is actually “We can’t burn a limited resource to escape our reliance on limited resources”. There is no “This depends” There’s a side that’s wrong (The “Nuclear is a solution” side) and there is a side that’s not wrong.
deleted by creator
No that’s not being fair. There is a difference between the resources needed to build something, and lighting a limited resource on fire for fuel. Especially when you still need to build the nuclear power plants. We literally can’t switch to all nuclear right now, if we do we run out of fuel in a presidential term.
deleted by creator
Here is the list of total places that don’t have access to wind, solar, water, or geothermal power but does have access to permanent nuclear waste storage:
End of list
That’s before we even get into the notion of reliable and cheap access to nuclear fuel. If we’re going to talk about logistics, we should actually talk about the enormous logistics required for any kind of major expansion of nuclear power that isn’t happening, won’t happen, and for which there is no plan. Not to mention the fact that maintenance of nuclear facilities is also costly. It’s not a problem unique to or especially incumbent upon renewable energy. The attempts to “be fair” here, are just regurgitating conservative arguments for fossil fuels, except the idea here is to create a gigantic infrastructure project for an intentional stopgap that would take so long to actually build we could also just build the fucking renewable capacity.
It genuinely cannot be overstated how much nuclear is just a distraction at this point.
deleted by creator
Nuclear is already in the mix. It’s not doing anything to help the situation. For it to actually do anything to alleviate the situation the pro nuclear position has to involve fucking sci fi technology and totally unworkable political projects. You are not getting a permanent nuclear waste storage facility and Thorium will not solve the energy crisis, therefore nuclear is not a panacea. Nuclear is a limited fuel source regulated by the most captured body in the entire universe. No climate solution can possibly involve leaning heavily into it. It just can’t. Just build renewable fucking energy. We don’t need to start 30 year long projects as stepping stones to converting the energy industry, that’s a time horizon that’s entirely out of step with reality, especially when you also expect and require the long projects to use sci fi technology that does not exist and for their reliable use have to finish political hot potatoes that the US has solidly avoided doing anything about for almost 100 years