You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

1
0

[–] mamwad 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

The fight against nuclear was funded by the petroleum industry. Combine that with the fact that political activists are often scientifically illiterate, environmentalist groups fought nuclear to an irrational extent. It was a huge mistake on the part of the green movement to reject nuclear as a major way to combat rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.

But, that is slowly changing. More environmentalists are realizing that wind and solar cannot currently produce enough power to meet demands, and are softening their stance on nuclear. Even first generation nuclear plants are far less harmful to human populations than oil, gas, or coal. And from what I understand "next generation" nuclear plants can actually use old nuclear waste as fuel. At this point, I think that any environmentalist that doesn't suggest nuclear as the major path forward is not intellectually respectable as an environmentalist.

As for hydro, I disagree. While renewable, it reeks havoc with ecosystems. If we transition to modern nuclear technology, we won't need it anyway.

1
0

[–] 51rH0n3y84d93r 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

We have a winner! Hydro would be a preferred option if nuclear was blocked. IE: If anthropogenic climate change will kill off numerous species, cause global droughts, and cause global starvation, hydro is better than nothing. (I'm still a fan of hydro in certain circumstances, but nuclear breeder reactors are the best option.)