[Twisell]

The point is that climat change is real and it’s coming fast. So from a purely pragmatic standpoint it seems more reasonable to deploy solutions as soon as possible with available technologies than to wait for a plausible technology improvements.

Otherwise you risk being almost as inactive in the required efforts than an average climat change denier.

[marcosdumay]

Hum... Do you have any actual solution? One that does solve carbon emissions, can be deployed in reasonable time, and does not involve people getting poorer?

The most pragmatic thing to do is to improve solar generation and all kinds of storage. Those can actually solve the problem. Nuclear can't be here on time (nor on budget), and everything else just won't happen.

We could have avoided a lot of problems on the last few decades if the nuclear countries decided to push for safer reactors with no proliferation problems. They didn't. They all kept going for more weapons. Now we have to live with those problems, and the nuclear economical window passed away, it does not make sense anymore.

[Twisell]

>and the nuclear economical window passed away, it does not make sense anymore.

Say’s who?

Because laws of physics say it’s the more efficient solution yet (not the cleanest thought) to tackle climat change problem. You have to put serious study out to counter that, not hearsay’s by coal lobby or anti-nuclear activists.