#+FILETAGS: @personal
:PROPERTIES:
:ID: 6b99a749-f954-422b-9cb9-73b9dcd0b1d3
:CREATED: [2009-09-25 Fri 18:43]
:MODIFIED: [2009-09-25 Fri 18:55]
:IMPORTED: [2023-02-08 Wed 19:22]
:END:
#+title: Nuclear argument

Alright, my usual rant about nuclear power/arms. Any reasonable person for nukes needs to argue for the following:

1. Earth has enough nuclear fuel to upscale production to good percentage of world consumption, that we won't burn all fuel in a few years and have to go back to fossil and renewables

2. Nuclear power is cheaper than mass scale renewables, even discounting nuclear environmental cost. Trends: Which energies are growing cheaper, and which more expensive?

3. That it is better if we destroy the entire world that if they do. Nuclear war damage is the only thing to outlast a 370 ppm Climate Change damage

4. That's no argument for proliferation. Math proves nuclear weapons encourage their use. Is better if 'we' destroy the entire world that if they do (Do not count me in)

Some sense of scale and urgency as well: Nuclear war damage is the only thing to outlast a 370 ppm Climate Change damage
