Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

134

Nuclear isn't cheaper, cleaner, more sustainable or even more efficient than other methods of producing electricity. Why would anyone want to switch to it since the jewish lies about (((climate change))) and (((peak oil))) and the like are often used as reasons for eliminating most current energy production. Just like with the push for (((EVs))), the reasons fail when the jewish lies are taken out of the equation. Nuclear doesn't seem to offer any real non-jew related benefits. Do people support it just like it because it's cool and techy?

Nuclear isn't cheaper, cleaner, more sustainable or even more efficient than other methods of producing electricity. Why would anyone want to switch to it since the jewish lies about (((climate change))) and (((peak oil))) and the like are often used as reasons for eliminating most current energy production. Just like with the push for (((EVs))), the reasons fail when the jewish lies are taken out of the equation. Nuclear doesn't seem to offer any real non-jew related benefits. Do people support it just like it because it's cool and techy?
You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (11).
[–] • 2 pts

There is a real upper limit to CO2 in the atmosphere, I think like 5000 ppm, where people will notice it. It eventually becomes deadly. Assuming plants and the ocean don't absorb the extra CO2, and that's a big if, we could hypothetically hit that in a few thousand years or so if we keep burning hydrocarbons at today's levels. It makes sense to develop a backup energy source. There really isn't any urgency though.

CO2 has been much higher before and the plant life brought down to today's levels. The system is self-correcting if you don't interfere with it. In a few thousand years we'll be off this rock anyway so I don't see any reason to panic about this at all.