Opposition to nuclear power generation is still “a thing”. Rachel Carson published “Silent Spring” in 1962 which was one of the first alarms that began to make people aware of the harm humans were doing to the planet.
Not a problem. EVs will mostly be charged overnight when demand for electricity is lowest.
That assumes of course that we don't replace fossil fuel heating of buildings with electric heat, which the nutty far left wants to do. Electric resistance heating works great -- at multiple of the cost of gas or oil heating. Or, how to impoverish the poor and middle class. Atmoshperic heat pumps do not work well in the Cold Belt. Geothermal heat pumps are too expensive and can't work in dense urban environments.
Could you please cite an instance of “the nutty far left” credibly arguing that we should all switch to electric heating? It seems to me that most of that is coming from electricity-producing companies which is so not the “nutty far left”. And could you also name at least two examples of what or who is the “nutty far left” of which you so glibly speak?
There are, indeed, practical existing alternatives to fossil fuels - geo-thermal, solar, wind, passive heating, proper insulation… these work on the individual level. If homes were built or retrofitted to these existing technologies, we could drastically reduce total national fossil fuel consumption. Offices, factories, most work places could also retrofit. We could stop the crazy consuming of stuff we use three times or once and throw out. There is no one innovative solution that will “save” us. We have to work together with what we have.
In the late seventies and early eighties there was a concerted effort to educate people about the dangers of nuclear technologies and the radioactive waste that has a toxic half-life of 125,000 years. Since then, the nuclear energy industry went quiet for a couple of generations and now is making a big campaign to greenwash nuclear energy as an answer to the climate crisis when, in fact, nuclear energy is part of the problem.
When opposition to nuclear power was a thing, climate change wasn't yet--other than among some climatologists.
Opposition to nuclear power generation is still “a thing”. Rachel Carson published “Silent Spring” in 1962 which was one of the first alarms that began to make people aware of the harm humans were doing to the planet.
Burning fossil fuels has done more damage to people and the environment than nuclear power has or could, even using 60's technology.
Not a problem. EVs will mostly be charged overnight when demand for electricity is lowest.
That assumes of course that we don't replace fossil fuel heating of buildings with electric heat, which the nutty far left wants to do. Electric resistance heating works great -- at multiple of the cost of gas or oil heating. Or, how to impoverish the poor and middle class. Atmoshperic heat pumps do not work well in the Cold Belt. Geothermal heat pumps are too expensive and can't work in dense urban environments.
Could you please cite an instance of “the nutty far left” credibly arguing that we should all switch to electric heating? It seems to me that most of that is coming from electricity-producing companies which is so not the “nutty far left”. And could you also name at least two examples of what or who is the “nutty far left” of which you so glibly speak?
There are, indeed, practical existing alternatives to fossil fuels - geo-thermal, solar, wind, passive heating, proper insulation… these work on the individual level. If homes were built or retrofitted to these existing technologies, we could drastically reduce total national fossil fuel consumption. Offices, factories, most work places could also retrofit. We could stop the crazy consuming of stuff we use three times or once and throw out. There is no one innovative solution that will “save” us. We have to work together with what we have.
In the late seventies and early eighties there was a concerted effort to educate people about the dangers of nuclear technologies and the radioactive waste that has a toxic half-life of 125,000 years. Since then, the nuclear energy industry went quiet for a couple of generations and now is making a big campaign to greenwash nuclear energy as an answer to the climate crisis when, in fact, nuclear energy is part of the problem.