nuclear and climate
It’s easy to get the idea that “that’s a problem for those 250000 years from now, not us”, but they have it backwards. It’s gonna be a problem for everyone up until then.
That said, my biggest prio is the most imminent destructions, with a special focus on climate change, and right now, it seems to me that fossils are worse than nuclear.
nuclear and climate
@Sandra My priority is the same, and from that perspective, nuclear is simply too slow. It takes >20 years to build a new nuclear power plant, and we don't have that time. It's similar for wind power but ramping that up is comparatively easier. Still, it will not help us soon enough either. Having a lot of low-emission power generation capacity when the warming is 3C or more is not going to help us much. Emissions need to be cut now.
Sorry, I you know all this already. It's just that I hear that "all we need is nuclear+renewables" narrative way too often. It's just not true.
nuclear and climate
I had mentioned both of those points in the essay itself at https://idiomdrottning.org/nuclear
There was something I planned to but forgot to say there, though, which I will add. It's that a lot of the same battery and motor tech that's useful for sun and wind now, so people should really get off the "lol we'll just wait for nuclear, and burn gasoline until then" and start switching to electric (and frugality) right now. Whether as a stepping stone or as the be-all, end-all.