• cooopsspace@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Yeah, principles.

      The principles that it won’t be profitable for 50+ years if at all.

      And it will mean we are stuck with fossil fuels for just as long.

      So I’m all for doing anything to survive, preferably sometime in the last 50 years.

      • atro_city@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        The principles that it won’t be profitable for 50+ years if at all.

        Sure, and your source for that is a green politician or an anti-nuclear thinktank?

        So I’m all for doing anything to survive, preferably sometime in the last 50 years.

        “Anything” for greens somehow doesn’t include nuclear for greens 🤷‍♂

        • cooopsspace@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          Because the money is better spent elsewhere.

          Yet if we plan for nuclear it’ll be like “oh no, we’ve had project delays and cost blowouts” like they do every time and we will just burn fossil fuels the whole time and die anyway.

          Also the anti nuclear green think tanks are called educated people. And all you’d need to do is look at the European failures and shut downs to know the costs don’t add up.

          • atro_city@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            Also the anti nuclear green think tanks are called educated people.

            LMAO. Your brain must be so much bigger than that of physicists who are proponents of nuclear energy. Mr “disagreement with my opinion means you’re wrong”.

            Very convincing argumentation