TVStocks, MusicStocks and Life

Imbecilic: climate change is a threat to our existence but not being full-on in favor of nuclear power. That's the only real, existing forlorne Jun 28, 13:16

Chernobyl {nm} Antibody Jun 28, 13:56

Fukashima {nm} professor zovek Jun 28, 14:30

It is FARRRRR safer than any other power source, & it emits zero CO2. If climate change is going to kill millions, which is safer? forlorne Jul 01, 07:02

Where's your evidence that nuclear is FARRRRR safer than solar, wind, geothermal, ocean wave... Antibody Jul 01, 11:12

https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy I also said PRACTICAL solution, wind (which results in forlorne Jul 01, 11:59

also https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html {nm} forlorne Jul 01, 11:59

2008 is before Fukushima and people are still dying from cancer from Chernobyl, with many more from both for years. Not to mention all the Antibody Jul 01, 15:48

No, you did NOT say "practical". You said "any other power source". {nm} Antibody Jul 01, 15:51

"only real, existing, scientifically sound solution". That = practical. {nm} forlorne Jul 02, 08:28

It’s not immediate though because nuclear takes years to build and has huge up front costs, so the economics require a guaranteed energy RogerMore Jun 28, 15:50

Point is if CO2 emissions are a threat to our existence, its the only currently existing solution. {nm} forlorne Jul 02, 08:29

Point is, it’s not as great a solution as you think it is. {nm} RogerMore Jul 03, 05:29

a bettter, more practical & evidence based is ____? {nm} forlorne Jul 04, 06:25

I gave my reasons in my post, and you haven't addressed any of them. {nm} RogerMore Jul 04, 09:39

(But I'll add this - I don't exactly see a bunch of investors lined up to build more nuclear plants right now, and it's because of the RogerMore Jul 04, 09:47