I do agree though, it shouldn’t be political

I like the idea of Nuclear Energy being a temporary solution

It's more efficient

It's safer than Oil and Coal

And it's carbon neutral

The main issue with it is the waste (which is why I think it's a **temporary** solution until a better energy source is developed)

The fact that Nuclear Power Plants designed in the 60s are still more efficient than many other power plants of other energy sources says enough

its definitely not safer

https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/USStatesWWS.pdf

this paper describes how we could switch to 100% renewables by 2050 with no nuclear

A noble idea

But is it just vapourware

pretty sure nuclear is objectively safer https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/06/opinion/sunday/climate-change-nuclear-power.html

seems better in just about every aspect compared to coal or oil

t@LOL https://phys.org/news/2019-07-charney-years-scientists-accurately-climate.html

i think it's safe to say they are not only recording it

but pretty much matching their predictions for tracking it as well

Global warming is not real

I think global warning is nature made, not human made

@SDKtheway *coughs* Chernobyl *coughs*

Modern nuclear is extremely safe. The handling and storage of nuclear waste is mostly a logistical issue - there is PLENTY of room to store it contained.

As for denying global warming or what right-wingers are finally "upgrading" to - claiming it's just nature, not manmade - how do you feel smart when your opinions differ from vast consensus in the scientific community? Do you believe you're smarter in this topic than all of them? Or is it conspiracy theories about Hillary Clinton paying all those scientists off?

Totally demented. I hope you're just greedy morally defunct people (lots of evidence to support that) who stand to gain money in some way by denying it. That, I can accept. But intellectual dishonestly and rampant disrespect for the scientists who elevated us out of the dark ages? Shame on you.

problem with nuclear is its a defensive liability

theres a reason why basically only the french go heavy nuclear

@Dr.Cosby How am I showing them disrepect by disagreeing with them and their proxy? Science has been wrong before. Did you know that they once supposed that there will be a ice age rather than a global warning? I think this because we, as the human race, do not nearly release enough c20 (or other green houses gasses) into the astophermere to get melting polar shit.

we have records of GHG levels and their correlation with global temps going back millenia

the consensus on a causal relationship is accepted

im in the field ive read plenty of the science

you dont have to believe me but as the kids say

it is what it is

the maginitude and consequences of change are debated

@chuckayy So you think global warning is man made?

to some degree

pun intended

@chuckayy why?

`we have records of GHG levels and their correlation with global temps going back millenia
the consensus on a causal relationship is accepted`

@GoldenGail3 what about chernobyl really though?

like do you think driving in a car is safer than flying?

many people might think that way, but the statistics show that the chances of injury or death from driving in a car are way higher than flying by air and i think that plays a big role into fears about nuclear energy

people associate it with these undeniably horrible events

but that skews their perception on it