Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

stopdiggin

(15,614 posts)
9. how about "the only viable means" CURRENTLY (and probably in any conceivable practical sense, potentially?) available?
Sun Apr 19, 2026, 08:37 PM
Apr 19

Like I said no one (or no one that I'm aware of) is saying that you cannot or should not invest in renewables. Feel free to do so to your hearts content! What I will contest - in strongest possible terms - is the assertion(s) that nuclear has no viable position in meeting burgeoning energy requirements going forward. (mostly rendered in terms of - the boogieman is lurking just around the corner, waiting to pounce. despite the comparative record that speaks quite differently .. ) That is both zealotry - and erroneous. Full stop.

When 'renewables' start coming anywhere near close to MEETING the needs of the world .... (something currently not on the table, in any reality based sense.) We can then have a different conversation - involving different metrics, and realities.

And in the meantime - we have allowed the greenies to saddle the world with the enormous harm caused by the brain-dead sociopolitical movement away from nuclear over the past 50 years - and into an increased reliance on fossil fuel. That metric is absolutely indisputable - and represents an almost indefensible self harm, bordering on crime against humanity.

Peace. Out.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»New metric shows renewabl...»Reply #9