Unfortunately this is an unpopular opinion and the other comments in the thread prove the average person thinks a nuclear power plant produces deadly products. It is literally thousands of times better for the environment than coal and gas plants. Replacing all coal and gas plants with nuclear energy would have an immediate positive impact on the environment. We also don't need to keep them forever. Eventually they'd be replaced with renewables.
A nuclear power plant does produce deadly products. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-waste-is-piling-up-does-the-u-s-have-a-plan/
A nuclear fusion power plant (up and coming) would produce zero net, but the energy needed is not yet sustainable. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/scientists-repeat-nuclear-fusion-breakthrough-in-a-step-toward-more-clean-energy-180982683/
However, I am not a professional, just a mere student. I think I'd agree that nuclear power overall, would be better now than coal or gas, but would be worse in the long run due to the residual pollution.
A nuclear power plant does produce deadly products.
Those potentially deadly products can be stored in a safe way. Your link doesn't even claim that it's actively killing people. They claim that it's costly to build geologic repositories, and once they're built you don't need more for a long time. Meanwhile coal power plants are directly putting deadly waste into people's lungs.
Take a look at this bar chart: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-production-per-twh
Source: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17876910/
Nuclear waste is a solved problem, and it has been solved for a long time.
It can also be reprocessed to further reduce the waste amounts:
Eventually they’d be replaced with renewables.
And what if instead you used that decade+ and those $B’s to just build out renewables and storage? You’d make a difference faster, get better/faster return on your Investment, have a more stable grid, and the operating cost would make your investment continue paying off more for the life of the technology
There are plenty of environmentalists with binary thought patterns. If they can’t have the perfect system now, they’d rather let it all burn.
Not limited to environmentalists
glares at Lemmy doomers, vote splitters, and "revolutionaries"
Ice free Arctic by 2025
"Yeah we can probably still pull out of this nose dive by consuming MORE power"
- The utterly deranged.
I'm not sure if that's an unpopular opinion so much as a completely incorrect one.
The simple truth is that nuclear is fucking expensive and takes a long time to build.
Renewables and storage are much cheaper and take way less time to start producing energy.
Given this, why would you be in favor of nuclear? Please don't try and tell me about base load (not needed), SMRs (even more expensive) or fusion (not going to happen in our lifetimes)
Given this, why would you be in favor of nuclear? Please don't try and tell me about base load (not needed), SMRs (even more expensive) or fusion (not going to happen in our lifetimes)
Peak-load scaling. The major advantage that fossil fuel generators have is that you can spin them up faster to react to higher demand. You can't do that with solar or wind, but you can with nuclear.
If we had grid-scale storage solutions, dealing with peak load would be easier but it's still more cost effective to build pumped hydro storage than large battery arrays. Most electric grids have to produce electricity on-demand which means they have to be highly responsive.
We don't have good grid-scale storage yet. We need demand-responsive energy production. Fission is better than burning coal.
You can’t do that with solar or wind, but you can with nuclear.
That's why I said renewables and storage. There are lots of storage technologies such as pumped hydro and various kinds of battery that can react very quickly to increased demand. You categorically cannot do that with nuclear, where did you learn this?
Firstly, nuclear needs to run 24/7 as it's not economically feasible to do anything else given how much these things cost. Secondly, you're still heating water to create steam to drive turbines to generate electricity. All of that takes time to ramp up and means that nuclear is not used to generate in response to increased demand.
To be fair, solar and wind are dependent on wind availability and solar availability year-round. Nuclear is buildable nearly anywhere. There are a lot of places other options aren't as possible or efficient.
nuclear is fucking expensive and takes a long time to build
So what? Cost is relative to supply, demand, and political willpower. Also, I suspect it's much cheaper than carbon recapture.
Given this, why would you be in favor of nuclear?
I think you've lost the point entirely. The question is "what do we need to effectively generate electricity without fossil fuels?" Nuclear is one such answer. Heaven forbid we encourage the development of more than one thing at a time.
Cost is relative to supply, demand, and political willpower.
Cost is cost and with new nuclear you can add on a fair chunk to whatever amount is quoted because they often go way over budget.
Given renewables and storage is cheaper, why would you want to piss money away?
Heaven forbid we encourage the development of more than one thing at a time.
We're been developing nuclear for 70 years. In that time it's not got cheaper, in fact the opposite has happened. Time to let go.
I don't like it, but I'll have to go along with it
Presumably you mean "Rufen Sie ein Taxi bitte sonst verpass' ich meinen Flug"?
New Zealand says you can.
Logical fallacy: “you can’t claim to support $GENERAL_AREA and be anti-$MY_SPECIFIC_THING at the same time “? I’m sure there’s a name for that type of fallacy
No True Scotsman: defending an ingroup by excluding members that don't agree with a particular stance. A subset of the Appeal to Purity fallacy, which argues that someone doesn't do enough or have enough of some attribute to be included in a group. Other examples (deliberately inflammatory to cause a knee-jerk reaction to show how easy it is to fall into these things) would be "You can't be a good person and support Donald Trump for Persident" or "You can't support Palestine and still vote for Biden."
I don't agree with OPs statement, but I do agree with their sentiment. Nuclear energy is one of the best options available from an environmental standpoint to meet our baseline energy needs and supplement grids using non-persistant renewable loke wind and solar.
Thanks. I like to think I’m an advocate for the environment but disagree with both the statement and the intent.
Nuclear fission has some nice properties we could use, but as an ideal. However the industry has also demonstrated it to be expensive and too long to build. It’s not practical
Renewables have some weaknesses we don’t entirely know how to fill yet. Storage is in infancy: great for stabilization but still trying to grow. However we’re not at the point where those weaknesses matter yet. The fastest and cheapest approach is to build out renewables and storage as much as possible, while continuing to develop more scalable storage or Fusion, or figure out how to make fission practical again, or simply how to minimize use of gas peaker plants
How high a percentage of renewables can we get, with current storage technology and still have a reliable grid? Let’s find out, plus that’s the amount of time where we need to decide on a more complete answer. We’re (US) not even close to that point, and easily have more than a decade at current rates before we do.
Edit: another answer is we no longer have time for nuclear. Given the history of how long it takes to build nuclear power plants, and our current emissions/climate change, we can’t afford to wait the decades it would take to build those out. Renewables can make an impact immediately
yeah. OP’s title sucks but the general gist is true, that making such a claim is either hypocritical or uninformed, maybe both.
mortality rate in deaths per thousand terawatt hour
if you disagree with OP, do some research and understand that you have been propogandized
I am 100% supportive of nuclear and still disagree with OP. Not supporting nuclear does NOT automatically mean you are not an environmentalist. That is just beyond stupid to me.
From your link:
How many lives were lost in these accidents?
So they are just looking at deaths from nuclear accidents, and not construction or mining? You would have to do the same for the others. What kind of wind and solar "accidents" are there (excluding construction and mining)? Was the sun or wind too powerful one day?
You're going to have to do better than that. Nuclear plants are guarded by barbed wire and guys with guns. Wind turbines are guarded by sheep. The solar panels on your roof are guarded by squirrels and crows. It's pretty obvious which one is more dangerous.
You’re going to have to do better than that.
No I’m not. You are moving the goalposts. The source of the article I linked specifically speaks to mortalities from accidents and air pollution. Asking that statistic to do overtime and somehow speak to mining fatalities is whataboutism and totally ignores that coal mining has exactly the same problem. Mining fatalities are significant and not to be ignored, but to cite them as a reason to prefer coal over uranium is foolish.
It’s pretty obvious which one is more dangerous.
Self-reporting that you didn’t even read the article lol. The cited graphic clearly indicates that more than 4x as many individuals have died from rooftop solar accidents, such as electricution and falls than have died from nuclear power, per unit of energy. Statistics like “look who is guarding the power source” are obscenely unfit to describe the situation in comparison to raw numbers of human deaths.
This opinion is true, unpopular and truly unpolular.
Bro this is "Unpopular Opinion" not "Unpopular Opinion and also pretend it's 1979"
Nicely done OP. This is the best post I've seen on this community on lemmy.
Also amusing how many ignorant and uneducated people are calling your take/nuclear energy "stupid" simply because they don't understand it.
"Nuclear = bad" is about as far as their level of thinking goes..
literally! incredible work OP in giving this unworthy, unmoderated troll den of a community some real content. 😼
edit: sorry if this sounded like sarcasm i do mean to compliment OP with this comment lol.
Nuclear waste = bad because we don't currently have a proper way to dispose of it. We bury it in a container with hopes that we'll find a way in the future.
IIRC we have 2 solutions 1 is what we currently use and the second is more or less the best but a tad expensive so we don't. (This is for the highly radioactive waste that has long decay and makes up about 1-3% of waste, the stuff we "worry" about)
The former is we mix the radioactive material with glass, ceramic, and concrete into large pieces and just leave em. Standing next to them you actually receive more radiation from the sun and they cannot be recovered into usable material because of how they are melted and mixed together.
The latter is more or less the same, but we dig, on site, an L shaped bore into the ground a long way into the earths crust where it can be stored indefinitely, is not recoverable, and can keep a site running for it's entire lifetime without filling the hole. You then fill in the hole at end of life and done. No harm to people, environment, or earth. Basically a DGR (Deep Geological Repository)
i don’t know if you checked in on what we do with excess matter from carbon fuels?
you are breathing it in right now 😌🤤😌
It's not that this is an unpopular opinion, but rather that it's a dumb opinion. You're defining things one way and someone else can define them a different way. You can both define what an environmentalist is differently and that will affect the result of your question. If you're insisting that you own the definition of an "environmentalist" then you're being dumb.
In fact, I agree with the unstated premise of your statement. I think the risks of nuclear waste and a nuclear meltdown are much less than the risks of global warming and therefore nuclear power is good for the environment. However it is also a perfectly valid opinion that we should just reduce our energy usage and reduce global warming in that manner. I think it's unrealistic, but it's possible if we had the desire to do that as a collective. It is a valid opinion to be on that side of the fence. I think it's the less pragmatic approach, but I've known many people who are hippy environmentalists and it's still a valid position.
You can claim anything you want.
Also, nuclear power has a huge environmental impact, it just offsets that impact by generating a fuckton of electricity.
In an idea world, we would look to make existing devices more efficient, and use them more responsibly rather than just generate more power to offset those losses.
Environmental and Health Consequences of Uranium Mining
Tailing deposits can cause landslides, air contamination, and wildlife exposure. Uranium tailings contain small particles that are picked up and transported by the wind. The radioactive particulates in the air can be concentrated enough to cause health issues including lung cancer and kidney disease. [6] These particles also contaminate soil and water. Furthermore, growing piles of mining debris become unstable and can result in fatal landslides, such as the 1966 landslide of Aberfan, which resulted in the death of 144 people. [7] Tailing ponds pose serious hazards to the environment as well through leaks, in which underground water becomes contaminated with heavy metals. [5] This can lead to the pollution of lakes and rivers. Local ecosystems, too, are harmed and destroyed by waste piles and ponds. Rain can interact with tailings and introduce sulfuric acid in aquatic ecosystems, similar to in-situ leaching. Wildlife exposure can also occur directly through interaction with tailing ponds. In particular, waterfowl often land and use tailing ponds, resulting in dire consequences. In 2008, 1600 ducks flew into a tailing pond and died in Alberta, Canada. [8] Evidently, the repercussions of uranium mining are far-reaching. Certain groups of people, however, are at greater risk of exposure to associated hazards.
The United States has a history of environmental inequity in which people of color and low-income communities are disproportionately subjected to environmental risks and consequent health hazards. Uranium mining is no different. Navajo Nation land, for example, is littered with tailing piles, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency has mapped 521 abandoned uranium mines on the reservation. [5,9] In this regard, uranium mining serves as an avenue for continued environmental racism, and the issue demands close examination and public awareness.
Source: http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2021/ph241/radzyminski2/
thank you for this, but keep in mind if you cite half of the data and you get half of an answer. nuclear power has FAR more energy per mass unit, which means FAR less mining than coal to get equivalent output.
nuclear is not perfect but is a wayy better option than most in the transition to renewables.
keep in mind if you cite half of the data and you get half of an answer
What half is missing in your opinion?
nuclear is not perfect but is a wayy better option than most in the transition to renewables.
I oppose both though, fossil and nuclear, because both are harmful. The world has enough energy as it is now, so why invest huge sums in transition technologies like nuclear instead of going fully renewable plus storage right away?
I don't know enough about the technology to have strong opinions on this. I was opposed to nuclear because I thought, what would we do with all the nuclear waste?
And then somebody pointed out to me that apparently all the nuclear waste product in the world could fit into the area the size of one football field. Okay, I thought, that doesn't seem too hard to keep contained.
But then I got to thinking about it and that can't possibly make any sense. It's not just the spent nuclear material, it's miles of radioactive plumbing, tons of hardware, sheet metal, asbestos (still?), etc., all irradiated, all toxic to life. So now I'm on the fence again.
could fit into the area the size of one football field.
The problem with that is that they haven't even managed to responsibly handle even that.
All of the irradiated equipment can't leach into groundwater though, and it's never as radioactive as the fuel itself. It's not safe to dump in a normal landfill obviously, but simply burying it usually fine.
Bullshit, nuclear waste is incredibly toxic.
Yeah it’s a good thing we have clean burning gas and coal
There is this crazy new trend called renewables. Also, please quote the part where I supported fossil fuels.
It's not as toxic as coal. It is only that you are used to those effects. It's also a safer industry to work in. Technically safer even than wind and solar last I looked. I wouldn't treat it as a permanent solution. But it could keep the lights on while we pivot to renewables.
Burning coal creates more radioactive waste but with nuclear power it’s contained instead of combusted into the air we breathe.
Still not a fan of nuclear, mainly because I think it takes quite long to build compared to the timeframe we have for fixing climate change, although I’ve seen some articles that it’s supposed to be faster now than the past 10 years.
Burning coal creates more radioactive waste but with nuclear power it’s contained instead of combusted into the air we breathe.
Fortunately, opposing nuclear power does not mean supporting fossil fuels.
Still not a fan of nuclear, mainly because I think it takes quite long to build compared to the timeframe we have for fixing climate change
Agreed, that is another good argument against nuklear.
what good things for the environment happened around chernobyl when the nuclear reactor there overheated? An area of 20 miles in any direction of the power station will be uninhabitable for at least 300 years, and potentially much longer.
Actually funny you mention that. Initially it was bad, but as time has gone on it’s arguable that the Chernobyl exclusion zone has actually helped the ecosystem in the area because humans aren’t around. https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/how-chernobyl-has-become-unexpected-haven-wildlife
Also, nuclear reactors aren't built that way anymore, and all the RBMK nuclear reactors have been fixed so they aren't able to experience that again.
This is not a good argument against nuclear power. The Chernobyl exclusion zone is actually doing incredibly well on biodiversity metrics specifically because humans don't go there at all. The real issues with nuclear power are how long it takes to set up, sourcing the fuel, and the fact that while containing the waste is not really that big a problem it is one that faces enormous political hurdles in many places
It's sad to see the number of comments here that still seem to be stuck in the misguided 80's/90's/00's mindset of 'nuclear power in real life is just as depicted in The Simpsons.'
Sadly to be pro-nuclear you must ignore the corrupting influence of money and assume short term profit isn't more important than People's health and safety. It has been proven over and over that the Gov. won't protect the People from Corporate greed. But please do tell how this time it'll be different.
Here, let the german Deputy of the Federal Chancellor and Federal Minister for Economic Affairs and Climate Protection shut you up. Starts at 24:56.
But to catch some downvotes as well:
You can't claim to be an environmentalist and not be vegan at the same time
Thats still unpopular but at least it's true. :)
I don't speak German. What's he saying there?
My English isn't good enough to translate it all in detail, but these are the basics:
Germany shut down all nuclear power plants but 3, which will shut down soon. So we will be nuclear free in the future, no going back from there. Then he talks about the nuclear power plants in France, which are all ailing and will be extremely expensive to repair (at least 1 billion euros per power plant). They are only still working because they belong to the state, otherwise they would have been insolvent long ago. A newly planned nuclear power plant is already so expensive to plan that most investors have backed out. If this power plant is ever built, it will supply the most expensive electricity ever produced in Europe.
Of course you can. Because nuclear energy is NOT a solution. Especially not in the long run.
This is accurate, however we can’t sacrifice good enough for the perfect we don’t have yet. I get there is no solution that lasts longer than a temporary one, but environmentally, nuclear absolutely should be implemented.
If you care about not having the environment be poisoned by nuclear waste for tens of thousands of years, then you kinda have to.
Nuclear waste is a solved problem, and it has been solved for a long time.
It can also be reprocessed to further reduce the waste amounts:
A fair dialectical starting point for a four-year-old.
Actual policy experts will tell you that the reason nuclear energy died off in the US in particular and in the world at large is not because of anti-nuclear environmentalist lobbies.
It's a financial question. What environmentalist opposition exists is neither sufficient nor necessary to explain the lack of nuclear development.
These projects get killed because they are almost hilariously expensive by any standard, including the cost per joule produced. They show NO signs of learning curves. Thorium is vaporware. SMRs have proven to be neither small nor modular. These projects get shitcanned not because oh no newcleer so skaweee. They get shitcanned because no one wants to pay for them when you can just do cheap natural gas and wind or even cheaper solar.
The hunt the nuclear fanboys go on to attack environmentalists is invented. It's basically false consciousness. The fossil fuel industry benefits from this strife.
For what a nuclear facility costs to build, buying equivalent solar would probably get you an order of magnitude more energy production, even factoring the additional transmission capacity you'd need to buy alongside it. You could almost certainly get at least the same value out of a combination of wind, solar, transmission, and medium-term energy storage. And end up with a far more resilient grid in the process. And also not be blighting a couple square miles of riverside real estate.
tl;dr - If nuclear was actually profitable environmentalists wouldn't be able to stop it, just like they can't stop fossil fuels.
Just so we’re clear, it is cheap fossil fuels that made nuclear uneconomical. Solar and wind provide a very different type of power in comparison, and do not really compete against each other. There’s a reason why countries that abandoned nuclear are suddenly thinking about restarting nuclear again (see Germany). Meanwhile, countries that fully adopted nuclear (see France) are seeing no pressure to abandon it.
It's cheap fossil fuels that first pushed nuclear uneconomical, particularly natural gas.
But today, solar is already making those same fossil fuels increasingly uneconomical. If we transferred the >$20bil/yr that current gets sent to the already-massively-profitably fossil fuel companies instead to grid upgrades, storage, and renewable investment, that'd be pretty fucking neat. We're already seeing rapid changes to the energy economy because of the reality of these costs. The trillion+ dollars being almost entirely directed to grid enhancements, under-served communities, and renewable energy that is the IRA is causing massive, sweeping changes to the world of energy too. Even if people on forums like these have decided they want to throw out that bill's swimming pool of babies just because one West Virginian took a dry dump in the corner in exchange for getting it passed.
The whole "very different type of power" thing I don't really buy. It is not a profound, cutting observation that the sun isn't always shining. The duck curve barely even exists when you have a good mix of wind and solar for most of the world since these sources are basically fully-complementary, and we already have lots of short and medium-term energy storage technologies that can be run for profit because of how cheap solar is. The market is already creating these incentives and businesses are moving in to fill the need; the technology exists or else isn't that hard to figure out. Overbuilding solar to the point of negative energy prices at peak production (& thus curtailment) will create huge incentives for storage. We're already seeing this; a handful of very serious industrial heat battery firms, for example, are offering products that take advantage of these energy price fluctuations that can be build and run profitably both for them and the firms that buy them. Markets are not a solution for all problems, but they are super goddamn good at wiping out arbitrage.
I've seen no evidence of Germany seriously considering spinning back up their reactors. If you have a source from within the last few months implying different, I'd love to read it, but as of last fall their energy ministry was completely dismissing these ideas as baseless rumors. I'd personally prefer it if they did, though; with the things already built, a lot of the cost is already sunk, and beyond that it seems worthwhile to get coal decommissioned.
France is a more complicated story, but it's impossible to deny they have a lot of successful nuclear capacity. But guess what they're pursing as their key generation platform for the future? It's solar. Because it's way fucking cheaper. Easier for them than most thanks to their massive nuclear base, no doubt.
Well, I'd say that this argument is just as simplistic and binary. I'm in no way an expert, but from what I've gathered, nuclear power is nowhere near the clean power with long term storage as the only issue that many people seem to think. Mining is extremely dirty and nobody wants an uranium mine in their backyard. Yeah, next gen nuclear reactors that run on depleted uranium sound great in theory. Too bad they are just one corner closer from cold fusion. I am too for nuclear power because of pragmatic reasons so we can shelve fossil fuels until we have better, but pretending it is unproblematic is ridiculous and plain stupid.
Edit: It seems I have the unpopular opinion around here for saying that nuclear power is not entirely unproblematic. Gasp, my pearls!
Well, we're certainly not getting away from mining with solar and wind.
In fact, the amount of uranium used is so low that the amount mined per megawatt-hour is probably way less than for building solar and wind.
It seems I have the unpopular opinion around here for saying that nuclear power is not entirely unproblematic.
There are a lot of people who, for reasons I can't fathom, have convinced themselves without evidence that nuclear is the future.
I didn’t realize nuclear waste was so great for the environment! I’ll be sure to tell that to the fish in Fukushima.
The US gets 1/5 of its power from nuclear energy, and produces 2,000 metric tons of nuclear waste per year – only enough to fill about half of the volume of an olympic-sized swimming pool (and about the same weight as 10 wind turbines).
Only 3% of all of that waste is actually long-lived and highly radioactive, potentially requiring isolation from the environment. In France, this number goes down to 0.2% due to fuel being reprocessed.
Taking that into consideration, that means it would take about 2/3 of a century for the US to produce enough dangerous nuclear waste to fill this pool completely. And it can still be way more efficient.
Nuclear produces negligible amounts of actual waste for the amount of energy it gives us. The problems with nuclear aren't at all the waste, rather it's the current highly used methods that are used to harvest the fuel (slave labour and unsafe, dirty, destructive drilling). Very similar problems faced with, say, lithium and cobalt.
Sure you can.
Nuclear waste is terrible for the environment.
Better than coal.
Nuclear waste is a solved problem, and it has been solved for a long time.
It can also be reprocessed to further reduce the waste amounts:
I mean, you can. It's stupid, yes but when has this ever stopped people?
I'm not personally strongly opposed, but "stupid" is kind of a dumb simplistic judgment. There are arguments for nuclear power, but there are definitely also many valid arguments against it. Key among them having to source uranium from locations on which we'd rather not be dependant.
australia and canada are among the top 4 uranium producers in the world, and australia has huge reserves that we just don’t mine because we have relatively expensive labour: our uranium is a byproduct of iron and other mining operations… i’d bet you’re not talking about australia when you said “rather not be dependant”, so ramping up our production is a clear, albeit more expensive option
“stupid” here stands for uninformed, succeptible to propaganda, and unwilling to examine presupposed beliefs in light of empirical evidence.
also # of arguments in favor or against something is an absolutely useless metric unless you properly weight every one of them. “we don’t know what to do with the waste which actually hasn’t killed anyone yet” does not outweigh “we are dumping the waste into the air and millions are already dying from the consequences.”
And the reason uranium is sourced there is because it is too expensive to dig up in the West, where there is plenty but laws against poisoning and abandoning your workforce make it too expensive.
What about if we run only on nuclear power and we launch the residues to fly thought the outer space? Problem solved?.
I would let the fucking aliens handle that shit instead of dying by toxic radiation here in the earth.
In the mind of the pro-nuclear advocate, they imagine oil and coal plants being decommissioned and beautiful, brand new super perfect never failing nuclear plants taking their place. In these dreams these nuclear plants are never made by the lowest bidder, are never under staffed or inadequately maintained, are never involved in war, are never targeted by terrorists, and are never struck by acts of God. These plants have perfect supply chains whose materials are exactly as durable as described and never less. They are run by people that will, quarter after quarter, year after year, never take shortcuts for profit or make decisions that will negatively affect the plant or the people working there. You see, even the capitalists are perfect little angels in this perfect plan that makes perfect sense.
Because what they're selling is a perfect version of a perfect nuclear plant. All inputs and outputs are perfect with the very small exception of the nuclear waste of course, which they have a perfect answer for as well. You see, we will perfectly store and perfectly wait for a perfect answer to our perfectly nightmarish waste product from our perfect energy source.
hey bro its cleaner than oil hey bro we could get rid of coal hey bro it's super safe that's why my plan calls for it to be built in South Dakota
No thanks. We don't need to jump out of the frying pan and into the fire to prove our environmentalism. Renewables are here. Let's make the great leap forward of this generation be the deployment of renewables on an unimaginable scale.
Even the baseline assumption that oil producing countries and corporations would just sit there and let it happen is so patently absurd that it's hard to take the conversation seriously at all. Sure buddy, Exxon and Saudi Arabia aren't going to deploy their armies of lobbyists and use their cartel to undermine the wholesale transition away from their product.
Sure buddy. Environmentalists against nuclear are binary thinkers but our idea of using nuclear isn't just naive magical thinking. Sure.
the strawman is burning and somehow you are shocked
I'm starting to believe that ecology parties are actually conservative and liberal, trrgeting the non fascists bourgeois who feel bad about the environment.
