We wouldn't even need to change a single nuclear power regulation to make them profitable; We could do that by just imposing the full costs of environmental protection onto ALL electricity generation, rather than ONLY on nuclear, as at present.
I agree that it was wrong to institute these regulations against having nuclear power in Australia. Australia could benefit from nuclear power.
Perhaps we should put this day on our calendars. On this day, Bilby and Merle agreed on something.
We need nuclear power to at least cushion the blow of the reduction of fossil fuel usage in the coming decades. Perhaps it can even do more. Even if a country is losing money on its current power plants, it still needs nuclear plants in the next 50 years as we phase out fossil fuels. And if we need them in the coming decades, the time to start building them was yesterday.
But none of that proves that nuclear reactors around the world, which are consistent money losers, would suddenly become very profitable if only we changed the regulations in the countries that have them.
Don't worry, I don't think you'll get reduced right away - it's going to take him a while to get to Santa Monica. Relax.
You seem to be missing the point. Nature will be the limiting factor ad the probable cause of population reduction.
Dude. That's a "Poisoning the Well" fallacy. "Final solution" refers to mass murder by the Nazis. Merle isn't advocating mass murder or implying it's desirable; he's advocating that people voluntarily choose to reproduce less. You know it, and he knows it. Therefore labeling his position "final solution" cannot possibly refute him; furthermore, it cannot possibly persuade him that he's wrong. So the only thing your rhetoric can possibly accomplish for you in this debate is to persuade third parties who don't already know Merle is against mass murder. I.e., you're spreading disinformation to them "to prime the audience with adverse information about the opponent from the start, in an attempt to make your claim more acceptable or discount the credibility of your opponent’s claim." That's Poisoning the Well. Don't do that.
Well Fizzle, you live a lot closer to the border than I do.
Thank you.
That’s an awful lot of words for “I know you are but what am I”.
That's a tautology -- the people who aren't pretty much the same aren't like Merle. Those you have in mind who want mass culls or forced abortions or forced sterilization aren't pretty much the same as him, and labeling them "people like Merle" misrepresents him.
Well, in the first place, if somebody really were implying forced abortions or forced sterilization is necessary, those things aren't a "final solution". China did the whole forced abortion thing back in the days of the One Child policy, and half the western world did the whole forced sterilization thing. (The U.S. didn't stop until 1981; the Czech Republic kept doing it until 2001.) That didn't make China or the west into Nazi Germanies. So even if these things really were what "people like Merle" advocated, your "final solution" rhetoric would still be misplaced.
And in the second place,
No. A lack of scientific spending will not damage the economy. Rather, a lack of scientific spending will keep us from finding answers that might save us.
Ah, so if we had to pay all the costs of getting power sustainably from a nuclear plant, including the cost of cleaning up our mess, it would be expensive.
No particularly; We do, and it is sufficiently inexpensive as to be competitive with other generation technologies.
Only if by "might be even more expensive", you mean "would certainly be VASTLY more expensive.
Understatement of the century. The storage alone is insanely expensive, and probably can't get vastly cheaper.
Yes. But only with nuclear fission.
That’s what I thought. But your cite was that 6b could die as a “direct result of overshoot”.
There are many problems. Declaring them all to be the same problem, and therefore to have the same solution, is counterproductive to the point of literal insanity.
