Australia has tried that with the emus already. They lost
Claidheamh
joined 2 years ago
So both of you are racist. That makes sense.
Does she know you generalise her entire nation based on her behaviour? That's racist af.
Who are you talking to? That was my first comment here.
Ah yes, what could go wrong with doing things the way they were done in the past?
Apparently he did stop it this time.
Very cool, very good proof of your claims.
I made no claims, I quoted from the wikipedia link you posted for us, which you may have not read yourself. You're clearly a bigger expert than the IPCC though, so I wouldn't even dare to make claims in your presence.
Some argue that transitioning to 100% renewable energy would be too slow to limit climate change, and that closing down nuclear power stations is a mistake.[122][123]
"Nuclear power must be well regulated, not ditched". The Economist. 6 March 2021. ISSN 0013-0613. Retrieved 31 January 2022. McDonnell, Tim (3 January 2022).
"Germany's exit from nuclear energy will make its power dirtier and more expensive". Quartz. Retrieved 31 January 2022.
In November 2014 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change came out with their fifth report, saying that in the absence of any one technology (such as bioenergy, carbon dioxide capture and storage, nuclear, wind and solar), climate change mitigation costs can increase substantially depending on which technology is absent.
So, again, if those three examples are what you mean by catastrophic failure, then my assumption was correct. None of them were due to maintenance failures or being in service too long. Catastrophic failure is not a failure mode for a modern reactor past its service life.
Can't forget about y'all'dnt've.
You said catastrophic failure in the same context as loss of life and land. That is what I was responding to, and it is incorrect.
You are right, but this isn't about offsets.