[macspoofing]

> maybe humanity would have started acting 30 years earlier.

I wouldn't bet on it. We know we can cut emissions today by investing in nuclear ... and nothing. We could have invested in nuclear power 30 years ago and prevented trillions of tons of CO2 from being emitted.

Instead we decided wind/solar/natural gas (and those are always package deal) is our best bet at fighting climate change.

>For example, we can't keep having irrational leaders that ignore basic scientific facts.

Facts like nuclear power is by far the best and only way to effectively fight climate change?

[ddebernardy]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/i-oversaw-the-us-nucl...

> I oversaw the U.S. nuclear power industry. Now I think it should be banned.

> By Gregory Jaczko

> Gregory Jaczko served on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission from 2005 to 2009, and as its chairman from 2009 to 2012.

The author is arguably talking his book, since he invested in a wind power company. But it's still noteworthy that nuclear physicists and former regulators don't necessarily agree with you.

[macspoofing]

Here's the first line:

>The danger from climate change no longer outweighs the risks of nuclear accidents.

If that's the assumption, then yes, let's get rid of nukes.

Do you think the risk of nuclear accidents is more important than cutting CO2 emissions?

[ddebernardy]

If memory serves me well, the author argues in a nutshell that, until recently, the risk of nuclear accidents was viewed as low enough that it was an acceptable one to take to reduce CO2 emissions, whereas nowadays producing green energy (wind, solar, geothermal) has become cheap enough -- and cheaper than nuclear, particularly if you factor in storing the waste -- that the nuclear risk is no longer acceptable.

[macspoofing]

>whereas nowadays producing green energy (wind, solar, geothermal) has become cheap enough

I keep hearing this meme, that either wind/solar is cheaper than X (where X is coal or nuclear) or is soon to be cheaper. The reality is that they are cheap and getting cheaper but the point is moot because wind/solar cannot power a modern economy.

By the way, Geothermal and hydro are great, but we're pretty much done with them. We've dammed every river that can be dammed and developed every geyser that can be developed.

>that the nuclear risk is no longer acceptable.

Our only real alternative to nuclear is wind/solar/natural gas (or coal). I put them as a package deal because they are a package deal. Wind/Solar only work when coupled with natural gas - this is why Germany is signing multi-billion natural gas as they are ramping up their wind and solar deployments. This is why every natural gas company now lobbies for wind and solar deployments. The problem is that natural gas is destructive to develop (for example may need fracking to extract) and is a fossil fuel. So if you really think that CO2 emissions are an existential crisis and cutting them to 0 is important - nuclear is still the only game in town. Otherwise, you're investing in natural gas as you are ramping up your solar panels and windmills.

[steve_adams_86]

I think you're right that nuclear energy is an excellent solution in many places, but I think it's actually becoming the case that solar and wind are cheaper in the short and long term and much cleaner in the long term. I'd personally like to see all 3 used in conjunction. Nuclear is very stable, but wind and sun are highly variable.

[pier25]

I don't disagree about nuclear, but you have to consider that the public opinion has been told for decades that climate change was a myth. Even today so many people use the word "believe" to talk about climate change. You can't believe a fact.

[macspoofing]

And you know what, anti-nuke position is still a way bigger problem than climate change denialism.

If you deny climate change, but you support nuclear power you're doing something to fight climate change.

If you believe in climate change, but you campaign against nuclear power you're actively adding to climate change.