[shadowfaxRodeo]

You could make the exact same argument about nuclear energy. The same promises were made, and it has failed to deliver.

It doesn't address the main issue of nuclear — it's incredibly dangerous. For nuclear to be safe you need human security, human experts, funding, you need to not have tsunamis, earthquakes, pandemics, wars, terrorism, economic collapse.

That's not a promise nuclear can make — especially given that we've almost certaintly have passed tipping points that will make unrest and extreme weather likely.

At this point it's not about stopping the climate crisis, it's about limiting the damage, and preparing society for the inevitable consequences.

[throwawaylinux]

> You could make the exact same argument about nuclear energy. The same promises were made, and it has failed to deliver.

No, you couldn't. That is not my argument! My argument is that nuclear is a proven technology to be able to replace carbon based electricity generation on nation-wide scale. France. It's electricity is cheaper and lower carbon than comparable countries in Europe. By 2050 France's electricity generation is actually forecast to increase in carbon intensity by almost 20% due to shutting down of nuclear reactors!

Why do you think the "environmentalist" / fossil fuel proponents have been repeating for the past few decades "oh well nuclear would have been great 10 years ago, but now it doesn't make sense"? It's because nuclear is proven, they know it, they can't address it (except by baseless fearmongering), and so they're misdirecting to keep fossil fuels on top. Why would France's emissions intensity of generation increase that much by 2050 if renewables were strictly superior to nuclear? Doesn't make any sense does it?

> It doesn't address the main issue of nuclear — it's incredibly dangerous.

That's just denial of reality. The facts aren't on your side I'm afraid. Nuclear is safer even without looking at the effects of carbon emissions.

> At this point it's not about stopping the climate crisis, it's about limiting the damage, and preparing society for the inevitable consequences.

That doesn't seem to add anything to the discussion. I don't know what you're getting at. At this point it is about reducing carbon emissions into the atmosphere, as it has been at previous points, and as it will be in future points. Fossil-fuel industry talking points aside, that clearly calls for nuclear electricity generation.

[smaudet]

> That's just denial of reality.

No, it's a denial of reality to point at "facts" cherry picked among reports which are made with exactly one goal in mind, to promote nuclear production.

Its then a red herring argument to presume that a worse option such as coal power is what is argued for...

Nuclear is not safe for people, I don't care how safe it "could be made" by throwing a shit ton of concrete on top of it and hooking fancy sensors up to it. Coal is also not safe for people, I mean we could just build big giant fancy air cleaners to clean it all up right? But you stick someone's head into a smokestack and they will die within an hour.

But I mean maybe you still disagree, I have a nuclear reactor I can throw you in where you can live out the rest of your pitiful half life :)

But back to the point, the "facts" don't support the logistical costs of nuclear. It is the exact same folly as letting coal go because we can "scrub the air", or pretending lithium ion battery waste and pollution is OK because we can throw that in a dump.

Facts are not reality, only a badly skewed vision of it.

[shadowfaxRodeo]

> That doesn't seem to add anything to the discussion. I don't know what you're getting at.

I'm explaining why I'm against building nuclear power plants — it's a very simple point really:

- Do nuclear power plants require stability to be safe?

- Is the world becoming more or less stable?

All the other stuff sounds like a conspiracy theory.

[throwawaylinux]

Your baseless assertion that nuclear power is incredibly dangerous is what sounds like a conspiracy theory. Certainly it's not based in any facts or science.

[shadowfaxRodeo]

It’s not dangerous?! Somebody tell the nuclear power companies. They’ll save so much money on security and safety. They could have a side hustle doing tours for school kids.

Of course it’s safe! This explains why Fukushima has such a thriving beach front community — and why three-mile island is such a tourist hot spot.

I guess that means dirty bombs aren’t dangerous? I guess nuclear weapons aren’t dangerous either!! Someone tell the CND, they’ve been wasting all their time protesting.

Wait, this is huge, the biggest conspiracy of all time. what about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they must be in on it too. Did they fake it?! Was the Cuban missile crisis an inside job? Is the Bikini atoll an advertising ploy for two-piece swimwear?

Does e=mc^2 or are Oppenheimer and Einstein sipping mojitos in the Bermuda Triangle with Elvis and Tupac?

[throwawaylinux]

The numbers do not agree with you.

[staysafeanon]

>Do nuclear power plants require stability to be safe?

Not any more or less than any other form of power generation, no.

> Is the world becoming more or less stable?

Definitely more stable. This is the safest, most crime free/stable the world has ever been.