[pfdietz]

Offshore wind is at the extreme of renewables. It may or may not make sense, but it's not needed to kill nuclear.

I will add that with natural gas still facing no CO2 tax in the US the impressive thing is how much renewable energy is still being installed. The environment is oppressive for anything but gas; it's absolutely lethal for nuclear, to the extent nuclear can count it as a victory if existing plants can remain operating.

I reject the argument that being against nuclear energy is "partisan". I suggest instead that new construction nuclear is just bad when examined objectively. Nuclear partisans (and there the epithet is warranted) do not exert quality control on their "arguments".

[chickenbig]

I believe that offshore wind formed a key part of the vision for the United Kingdom's net zero transition. They wanted to use the learning curve to become the "Saudi Arabia of wind power", manufacture hydrogen etc.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-54285497

[neglesaks]

>I reject the argument that being against nuclear energy is "partisan".

I'm specifically referring to your extreme rhetoric in this thread. Despite your continued claims, nuclear is experiencing a renaissance these years, and I see that it's purposeless to argue the point further with you, so I'll let you observe the developments yourself in the coming 10 years as they will speak for themselves. End.

[pfdietz]

I feel the rhetoric is warranted, given the quality of pro-nuclear arguments. I wish you'd be as offended by that as you are by mere tone.