• redballooon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    18 hours ago

    No we weren’t. We were fucking scared when theoretical statistics about nuclear accidents actually manifested in the real world, and didn’t want to have one of those in our neighborhood. so we took the opportunity to shut it down when it presented itself.

    Those people who were funded by petroleum simultaneously made sure to delay wind and solar as long as they possibly could, and that is while we’re still stuck at coal and gas. Those same people have the majority of the vote nowadays once again, and you can watch them do it again: even though wind and solar is the most economic choice by now, they are doing what they can to slow it down.

    • betanumerus@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      18 hours ago

      they are doing what they can to slow it down

      … to slow down wind, solar and nuclear, exactly.

      • redballooon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        17 hours ago

        Not really. They sometimes bring the nuclear idea to the table as an alleged alternative to solar and wind. But the reality is that in today’s democracies nuclear is near impossible to build for a variety of reasons. It’s never a real alternative, only one to slow down wind and solar.

        • betanumerus@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          15 hours ago

          For as long as I can remember, the entire world has had 400-something running nuclear power plants. I suspect 400-something is a fundamental nuclear constant.