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

NNadir

(38,255 posts)
2. Well, yes, given that it took half a century of cheering for solar and wind to get to 1/3 of what...
Fri Jul 22, 2022, 06:49 AM
Jul 2022

Last edited Fri Jul 22, 2022, 07:58 AM - Edit history (1)

...the annual amount of energy that nuclear energy started producing when new construction was stopped by appeals to fear and ignorance with a huge dollop of selective attention.




Source: IEA World Energy Outlook, 2021, page 294, Table A1A

Despite this data, compiled for more than 3 decades, we still hear nonsense that solar and wind are quick to build. It's true they're quick to industrialize huge tracts of land that would otherwise be, in many cases, wild, but they are useless at addressing climate change. They're really lipstick on the fossil fuel pig, a big lie people tell themselves.

We don't really need "other" no carbon resources beyond nuclear, and the claim that we do is rapidly being shown to be absurd by the fact that the planet is in flames, while a vicious thug like Putin holds Europe (and the world really) hostage.

Recommendations

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

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Pickering Nuclear plant n...»Reply #2