And what happens when thousands of massive solar farms have to be scrapped and replaced? What's the plan? What about the impacts of mining the massive amount of inputs needed? 
I'm for solar, but we can't pretend that nuclear is the only source of energy with environmental downside and risk. By all accounts, it has among the smallest footprint and risk. I don't get all the pretzel logic to act as it was the highest.
It just seems like obsolete, leftover 70s scaremongering because the what risks there are -- are more psychologically salient than forms of energy that have bigger impacts and risks but don't give people nightmares or fuel movie plots.
And by pretzel logic, the Guardian article gives an example. The most compelling argument was that releasing the radioactive water would hurt fishermen because ... despite the science indicating that the fish would not pose a significant risk ...
... the public would still shun Japanese seafood. That is given as a reason by people who have been fearmongering nuclear that nuclear power isn't worth the cost because of the stigma of nuclear accidents.
You don't get to inaccurately fearmonger for 50 years and then say, "Well, it may be safe, but the public doesn't trust it, so it's not worth it."
That's just bottomlessly dishonest and cynical --- even if they don't realize it because they are just grabbing any lawyerly argument at hand and convincing themselves it's true.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
