Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Environment & Energy

OKIsItJustMe

(21,875 posts)

7. As usual, you suggest that anyone who disagrees with you in the slightest degree is ignorant and/or stupid

Reply to NNadir (Reply #6)

Thu Mar 26, 2026, 10:30 AM

23 hrs ago

I have presented several tables from the IEA (and others) which you simply ignore. You only read things that you feel support your extremist view.

Nuclear fission has a role to play in the future power system as it does in the current system. It will not be the sole source of electrical power. We cannot afford to wait for a sufficient number of fission (or fusion) plants to be built. We need to cut emissions today, not in some indefinite future.

So, by all means, let’s build those Gen. IV reactors. In the meantime, let’s continue to deploy technologies that work and are quickly being deployed today.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

1 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

thought crime

18 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Extreme global climate outcomes are possible even at 2C of warming [View all] OKIsItJustMe Yesterday OP

James Hansen et al: Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms: evidence from paleoclimate data, climate modeling, and... OKIsItJustMe Yesterday #1

Yes, but Fukushima was worse, right? NNadir Yesterday #2

False Dichotomy OKIsItJustMe Yesterday #3

Bullshit. There is a CAUSE of the climate collapse, and it is the use of fossil fuels. NNadir Yesterday #4

Yes OKIsItJustMe Yesterday #5

Bullshit again. Nuclear energy is the ONLY form of power, worldwide, that exceeds the capacity utilization of coal... NNadir Yesterday #6

As usual, you suggest that anyone who disagrees with you in the slightest degree is ignorant and/or stupid OKIsItJustMe 23 hrs ago #7

As usual I note that while I respect and utilize the IEA tables giving historical data, I have zero respect for... NNadir 22 hrs ago #9

Something you won't bother to read OKIsItJustMe 23 hrs ago #8

I read all day long, but I am very clear that the word "Watt" is a unit of PEAK power, not energy. If one... NNadir 22 hrs ago #10

The sort of evidence you ignore because it doesn't support your narrative OKIsItJustMe 22 hrs ago #11

I refer you to post #9 in this thread. As for climate gas reductions in China, attributing them to solar... NNadir 21 hrs ago #12

A scientist looks at evidence for and against their theories OKIsItJustMe 21 hrs ago #13

Again, bullshit: Pot and Kettle. I have merely pointed out that climate gas reductions in China can be attributed... NNadir 21 hrs ago #14

From the data at the link in post #14, one can calculate that the capacity utilization of nuclear plants in China NNadir 20 hrs ago #15

Um, it would seem - not all that surprising - that "I'm not an antinuke" antinukes around here know nothing at all... NNadir 3 hrs ago #18

China is adding renewable capacity MUCH faster than it is adding Nuclear. thought crime 15 hrs ago #16

The "nukes-only" folk don't understand the word "transition". thought crime 15 hrs ago #17