Support for Nuclear == Denial

[OKIsItJustMe]

22. Well, interpreting the statement would be in the context in which was written.

I believe the meaning is fairly clear.

If you decommission nuclear plants, alternative power sources will be used, but those probably will not be renewable.

I’m a great fan of renewable sources. I am not a fan of nuclear fission.

I think we have enough of a challenge in front of us as it is.

Our first goals should be:

1. Stop increasing the rate of GHG emissions growth.
2. Stop increasing GHG emissions.
3. Decrease GHG emissions.
4. Go “carbon neutral.”
5. Go “carbon negative.”

We need to do all of this in relatively short order. Prematurely decommissioning existing nuclear plants will only make things worse.

So, go ahead, deploy the renewables with all due haste. As we bring them on-line, take other sources off-line.

1. (Non-CCS) coal plants.
2. (Non-CCS) natural gas plants.
3. (If there are any left—non-CCS) oil-burning plants.
4. (Non-CCS) biomass plants.
5. CCS plants (clearly, CCS is not a good long-term solution.)

If we can then take the fission plants off-line, I’m all for it.

[hr]
However, sorry, in the meantime, yes, we may need to bring some fission plants on-line, and, frankly, if we’re using Transatomic’s proposed WAMSR plants (or something like them) which will help us deal with our growing stockpiles of nuclear waste… the sooner the better.