Collectifission on Nostr: So, I follow loads of people and I'm always happy to follow someone who thinks ...
So, I follow loads of people and I'm always happy to follow someone who thinks climate change and environmental issues are important.
This isn't exactly always reciprocated, see below screenshot. Let me just repeat then, for the umpteenth time, that I think we should build ALL the things to get to zero emissions.
Solar and wind have an important advantage, compared to nuclear (it may actually be one of their very few): they can be rolled out faster. So yes, at enormous cost, at enormous mining (mostly in the third world) and at a big attack at the local environment (cutting down forests, industrialising sea floors), we *have to* build many more wind farms and solar parks. Cutting down emissions needs to take priority.
After a generation, when they need to be replaced, the nuclear power plants we could be starting to build today, can replace them and ensure a clean energy grid forever. Yes, I have the undoubtedly unpopular opinion that I think solar and wind are transition energy forms. Nuclear will make up the bulk of human energy consumption for the next millennia.
Of course, the people who post below messages never bothered to actually learn my position and simply project their renewable maximalism onto me, in reverse, thinking I don't want to build any solar and wind at all. This is where I sometimes get accusations like me frustrating the energy transition. Every accusation is mere projection, I suppose.
Anyway, I didn't bother replying to this user in private. This is usually a waste of time anyway, and I unfollowed them again.
This isn't exactly always reciprocated, see below screenshot. Let me just repeat then, for the umpteenth time, that I think we should build ALL the things to get to zero emissions.
Solar and wind have an important advantage, compared to nuclear (it may actually be one of their very few): they can be rolled out faster. So yes, at enormous cost, at enormous mining (mostly in the third world) and at a big attack at the local environment (cutting down forests, industrialising sea floors), we *have to* build many more wind farms and solar parks. Cutting down emissions needs to take priority.
After a generation, when they need to be replaced, the nuclear power plants we could be starting to build today, can replace them and ensure a clean energy grid forever. Yes, I have the undoubtedly unpopular opinion that I think solar and wind are transition energy forms. Nuclear will make up the bulk of human energy consumption for the next millennia.
Of course, the people who post below messages never bothered to actually learn my position and simply project their renewable maximalism onto me, in reverse, thinking I don't want to build any solar and wind at all. This is where I sometimes get accusations like me frustrating the energy transition. Every accusation is mere projection, I suppose.
Anyway, I didn't bother replying to this user in private. This is usually a waste of time anyway, and I unfollowed them again.