| ▲ | AdamN 9 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||
That's a really fallacious argument. Nuclear wouldn't stop truck emissions, car emissions, boat emissions, long distance freight train emissions (unless electric), and airplane emissions. It wouldn't stop military emissions (which are significant). We could have done a lot more nuclear but it's not clear that it would have done more than a few percent of CO2 savings in the overall scheme of things. You can see this most clearly in China which is still burning tons of coal in 2026 and have had no compunction with nuclear ever. | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | empiricus 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||
If electricity is cheap enough, you can take CO2 from air and make fuel (not sure what is the threshold? 5-10 times cheaper then now?). then you can use that fuel where you need its energy density. I agree that it seems pretty dumb to ignore China (and soon India) CO2 emissions. Again, if you manage to make nuclear cheap enough, you could just gift reactors to everyone that needs them. It can be argued that cheap and safe nuclear was not really tried. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | boxed 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||
You can just look at the total emissions from France and compare with Germany. It's quite amazing the difference. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?c... Imagine having HALF the CO2 emissions. HALF. That would be amazing. If we had that in most of Europe and the US instead of listening to the anti-nuclear lobby we would have a ton more runway to fix the issue than we have now. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||