[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.