PSF: Append :@personal: to all files in inbox/notes
This commit is contained in:
20
inbox/notes/2009-09-25-nuclear-argument.org
Normal file
20
inbox/notes/2009-09-25-nuclear-argument.org
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
|
||||
#+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
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user