Scientists thought carbon emissions had peaked. They’ve never been higher

Re:Scientists thought carbon emissions had peaked. They’ve n... by _hypx on Tuesday December 06, 2022 @05:23PM (#33887984)

It's sad that we've become so anti-nuclear. All of this was preventable had we made sensible energy policy. But instead, virtue signalling become the dominant driver of "green" energy, and as it turns out that doesn't do anything to solve climate change.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Scientists thought carbon emissions had peaked. They’ve n... by NoThisIsMe on Tuesday December 06, 2022 @08:09PM (#33889449)

It was preventable without nuclear too, so I don't see why it would have made a difference.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Scientists thought carbon emissions had peaked. They’ve n... by ben_w on Wednesday December 07, 2022 @03:29AM (#33892003)

Nuclear 20+ years ago, before PV was cheaper than basically everything, would have displaced quite a lot of fossil fuels.

While I don't see a long term future for fission, I'm still quite happy with it being rolled out wherever politicians decide to, simply because I see a value in diversity of supply.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Scientists thought carbon emissions had peaked. They’ve n... by Delemono on Wednesday December 07, 2022 @04:49AM (#33892498)

I assume it wasn't just Chernobyl that is the reason for our current nuclear situation.

Then the question is, what was it.

Based on how little people cared about smog and CO2 I assume it was just never that cheap and easy to do.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Scientists thought carbon emissions had peaked. They’ve n... by dakial1 on Wednesday December 07, 2022 @07:10AM (#33893432)

The same with every other alternative energy source: Oil Companies/Countries lobby.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Scientists thought carbon emissions had peaked. They’ve n... by _hypx on Wednesday December 07, 2022 @02:40PM (#33899165)

It’s probably that plus anti-nuclear weapon fears.

[ Parent | on HN ]