:doom
When folks ask me why I’m opposed to building nuclear when it seems like such an easy way out of carbon dependency, this is why. All it takes is one conflict to threaten a meltdown.
What difference would new plants make? There already plenty of potential nuclear accidents to contaminate several countries in the event of a war.
Nuclear is still better an option than degrowth or industrializing entire planet with dilute renewables.
It was in a training facility. Please explain to me how a nuclear disaster is worse than climate change, because that is our alternative.
That assumes that increasing energy production does anything to prevent climate change. Countries aren’t transitioning to nuclear, they’re expanding into nuclear. Increased production drives increased consumption, just look at how the green revolution has increased world hunger. Climate change is a social issue and must have a primarily social solution.
The solution now is the same as it’s ever been: Degrowth in the global north
OK then, what do you propose? Closing all the nuclear reactors so that you can become fully reliant on Russian fossil fuels for energy?
Transition that begins with lowering the west’s energy consumption, focusing on closing carbon plants while placing a moratorium on building new dams and nuclear. Stop the Gate-wroldbank-ford-rockafellar funded biotechnology transition that’s driving rising birthrates, replace car infrastructure, stop manufacturing treats, etc.
