21 lines
1.1 KiB
Org Mode
21 lines
1.1 KiB
Org Mode
#+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
|