Chernobyl happened in 1986 and that isn't 50 years ago. If you want to rant at least get your facts generally correct.
My bad, I I am bad at math. Also, I said "almost". Cut me some slack, it was 2am.
Also there was a nuclear disaster in Japan much more recently, which is btw. much more advanced country. Therefore this technology has it's large risks and then there is the systematic problem of waste. That isn't trivial at all.
Japan has been nuclear since the 1960s and they only now had a disaster. And it was due to a natural disaster.
Plus there are problems people like you don't like to think about: There is no way that every country will be allowed to have a nuclear program. That is simply politically unrealistic and most can't even afford it. Since it requires sudden huge investments and plenty of already existing infrastructure. What with green energy isn't necessarily the case. Plus there is the problem that the ore with nuclear elements in it is quite rare and evidently non renewable. Therefore if the world would just switch to this source it should quickly deplete the fuel supply. Especially since you need higher concentrations in order to have economic viability, what even further reduces usable ore supply. Nuclear has to be the part of transition period towards the green energy but nuclear energy as we know it probably doesn't have much of a long term future. Since the ore needed for it is rare and we are running out of it. The only thing really good about nuclear is that we need to get off fossil fuels as fast as possible and nuclear energy can mild out the transition.
It is not unrealistic, especially if monitored. I am also not talking about giving North korea fucking nuclear power lol. I am mostly talking about the West. China has the most nuclear power apart, the East does in general. So who are you worried about getting nuclear power again?
If they were so concerned with giving bad countries nuclear power, then why did Obama give Iran "nuclear power"?
Also, my main argument is still diversity of energy. Not switching to one or the other.
Perhaps but the biosphere can't really live if the fossil fuels aren't replaced. That is simply basic chemistry even if complications are inconvenient. The very negative changes in weather patterns will happen, with the melt of glaciers you will have collapse of water supply and agriculture, with acidification of oceans due to the increased CO2 you will collapse of the food supply for billions. Also you will eventually lose tens of trillions in infrastructure regarding the rising sea levels. Fossil fuels simply have to go, there is no workable alternative to that.
I am pretty sure the government has already figured out alternatives, but won't fund it/use because they make money off of fossil fuels and green energy. They also probably want the majority of the population to depopulate.
Plus fossil fuels are generally under the control of dictatorships. Therefore with fossil fuels you are basically directly financing dictatorships that will then have the resources to undermine the democracy. If anything this will simply require visible increase in military spending as a counter.
Wow, if only something like energy independence existed. WE had it when Trump was in office, but Biden gave it back to the dictators. I wonder why?
So globally the problem is much more complex than people think and the endgame can only be global in the end. Everything else is just a chat about temporary local issues.
So globally, the only solution is energy diversity. Because everyone's needs are different, as well as every countries needs and resources.
I'm not 100% anti-nuclear but calling it it perfectly safe seems a stretch.
It is safer and more reliable than a lot of other sources of energy.
This is definitely not true when politicians are being bribed to keep the country reliant on it, which also makes the country dependent on foreign dictators.
See what I said above, energy independence is important. Now you know why I support it.
See above. Do you think that money is just a gift package given for public service and nothing is expected in return?
Oh you mean like public healthcare/free college that you want so badly? Are you sure it wouldn't have the same strings attached?
So, what we should do is not develop green energy technologically, but keep relying on something that is only affordable because tax dollars are keeping it afloat. As sources of oil dry up, won't the subsidies needed get higher and higher? How is that sensible?
No, we should evolve all energy sources, all the time. I said nothing about not funding green alternatives, but you cannot force an inefficient alternative that becomes a money pit, onto the people, when there are better alternatives.
Yes green energy sources have their issues but I don't regard the argument that it's totally fine to keep relying on oil and gas as credible. I'm sure the fact that politicians and pundits parrot this line of thinking has no connection at all to the massive amounts of money they receive from these companies. Nope, nothing at all. It's purely a matter of practicality and pragmatism and not naked self-interest.
I think you misunderstood my argument, again. I want DIVERSITY of energy. Not ONLY GREEN, not ONLY FOSSIL FUELS. I also want you to recognize the unrealistic expectation people have for green energy, and why it cannot currently compete with fossil fuels on a level playing field. The alternatives literally only exist, for someone to profit off of people's good will to the environment.
Then, THEN, you cannot forget the fact that almost all the pollution being dumped into the atmosphere, and the ocean, that is causing climate change to begin with, doesn't even come from Western countries. It comes from China, it comes from India, and it comes from Africa. These are the places you need to address, to even think of conquering climate change. First and foremost. If you, if the West cannot even manage that. We are fucked, even if we had zero carbon footprint and 100% green energy alternatives. We cannot reverse the course of climate change due to the sheer influence these countries have over such massive swaths of land. Half of the world in fact.
Also, when looking up climate information for pollution, make sure you are not falling for the meme like "green house gas", because what really contributes most to climate change, is deforestation, pollution of rivers (plastics), desertification, and fine particulates.
