WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2026 Poal.co

1.3K

In the words of James Hansen, the scientist most responsible for promoting global warming, wind and solar are “grotesque” solutions for reducing CO2 emissions. Michael Shellenberger, a prominent activist, has the same opinion. Hansen and Shellenberger, as well as many other global warming activists, have come to the conclusion that nuclear energy is the only viable method of reducing CO2 emissions from the generation of electricity. Nuclear reactors don’t emit CO2. Coal and natural gas do. Hydroelectric electricity does not emit CO2 either, but opportunities for expansion are limited. In the United States most of the good sites have already been developed.


Nuclear electricity is a young industry with a big future. That future is materializing in Asia given the successful propaganda campaign to make people afraid of nuclear in the U.S. and in much of Europe. Nuclear fuel is extremely cheap, around four times cheaper than gas or coal. Nuclear reactors don’t have smokestacks and they don’t emit CO2. New designs will dramatically lower costs, increase safety and effectively remove most of the objections to nuclear. It is an incredible contradiction that most environmental organizations advocate wind and solar and demonize nuclear. In the future nuclear may be cost competitive with natural gas.

> In the words of James Hansen, the scientist most responsible for promoting global warming, wind and solar are “grotesque” solutions for reducing CO2 emissions. Michael Shellenberger, a prominent activist, has the same opinion. Hansen and Shellenberger, as well as many other global warming activists, have come to the conclusion that nuclear energy is the only viable method of reducing CO2 emissions from the generation of electricity. Nuclear reactors don’t emit CO2. Coal and natural gas do. Hydroelectric electricity does not emit CO2 either, but opportunities for expansion are limited. In the United States most of the good sites have already been developed. > --- > Nuclear electricity is a young industry with a big future. That future is materializing in Asia given the successful propaganda campaign to make people afraid of nuclear in the U.S. and in much of Europe. Nuclear fuel is extremely cheap, around four times cheaper than gas or coal. Nuclear reactors don’t have smokestacks and they don’t emit CO2. New designs will dramatically lower costs, increase safety and effectively remove most of the objections to nuclear. It is an incredible contradiction that most environmental organizations advocate wind and solar and demonize nuclear. In the future nuclear may be cost competitive with natural gas.

(post is archived)

Nuclear is the way to go. But, it's use would destabalize the multi-trillion dollar oil/"green" energy indistry.

Hence why there's so much propaganda (because that's what it is) around "evil scawy nuclear energy"

Remember Fukushima?? Chernobyl?!?!??!?! FEAR FEAR FEAR

[–] 1 pt

Nuclear is gonna kill us all ZOMG!!!!!!11!!1

[–] 0 pt

The only problem I have with nuclear is the push to keep using the older style reactors that rely on high pressure to operate.

I'm all for thorium salt reactors, as far as I know, they aren't pressurized. As a result, you shouldn't get a Chernobyl or Fukushima mess if something goes wrong. And the way everyone is pushing diversity and lowering of standards, well, nothing good will happen when you have idiots in charge of those systems.