Nuclear Energy

I have a few right wingers on my Facebook page, some I know in real life and some I don’t, and when I say right wingers I mean (for the purposes of today’s blog) men who are seriously bent out of shape that Greta Thunberg is advocating for pro-active environmental action.
They are climate change deniers, pointing out that no entire nations have disappeared yet (which is true, it’s just a few islands here and there so far) and we’re all still alive and breathing, so how bad can it be? Probe them a little further, ask them why they are against a cleaner environment, and they start pointing out the limitations of wind and solar energy, such as limitations on storage, inefficiency, etc…
Which is partially true, but battery technology is improving all the time, and if solar panels and wind turbines don’t provide enough energy to power our huge cities and world encircling roads, the solution is to install still more wind turbines until they do. If we have covered all of the world’s rooftops and parking lots with solar panels, and covered all of the world’s vast prairies with wind turbines, there is lots of room in space for more solar panels. Lots and lots.
Then they start in on nuclear energy, which is sort of changing the subject. Andrew Yang is big on nuclear energy, and I think there might be a Venn overlap here, between the Yang Gang and Grown Men Who Are Threatened by Greta Thunberg.
To be sure, I’m much more in favor of nuclear than coal or oil. It has taken fewer lives and, unlike coal and oil, it’s not likely to run out in the foreseeable future. If those were our only two choices, I would vote for nuclear.

But, the point is, Greta Thunberg is absolutely right, the governments of the world need to start doing a hell of a lot more to save the environment, and her critics are actively standing in the way. They may not agree, but in my eyes they are actively working to make the world a worse place.