/sci/ - Science & Math

B-BUT RENEWABLES ARE CHEAPER!

They are, with billions in government subsidies and investment paid by the taxpayer. Countries like Germany and Australia have seen their power prices increase drastically with the introduction of renewables and decommissioning of stable baseload electricity, renewables advocates come up with all sorts of mental gymnastics and all matter of muddying the waters as much as possible when asked about the cost of renewables, but it comes to a basic question, if renewables are so cheap why isn’t this reflected in bills for consumers?

B-BUT NUCLEAR IS TOO EXPENSIVE

Whenever someone tells you Nuclear Power plants cost too much to construct, remember they are devising these costs from US Nuclear Power Plants who’s construction is wrapped in layers of red tape implemented by radical anti-nuclear boomers 30 years ago and maintained by renewables advocates, don’t believe me? France has managed to keep their Plant construction cheap over the decades compared to the US, where construction costs 60% more, in other parts of the world South Korea has even managed to bring down construction costs. Even so, despite the initial price, Nuclear has been proven and continues to provide cheap, reliable green energy, France is a prime example of this with some of the cheapest electricity in Europe behind Eastern European countries who heavily use fossil fuels.
http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2017/ph241/kim-d2/

B-BUT NUCLEAR IS DANGEROUS!
An easy argument to refute, Nuclear Energy has the lowest death per terawatt hour and lowest hypothetical deaths of any energy source (https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy)), the reality is, fossil fuels kill millions more than Nuclear has or ever will, we hear nothing from greenies but the supposed devastating impact of Nuclear accidents when in reality they are a drop in the ocean compared to deaths from Fossil Fuels, what is the (drastically) lesser of two evils here when we are fighting against climate change? (caused by fossil fuels)

B-BUT NUCLEAR IS BAD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT

Again, When you compare Nuclear Energy to Fossil fuels, Fossil fuels are vastly more damaging to the environment compared to Nuclear, especially with Co2 emissions, Chernobyl, the site of the supposedly most devastating Nuclear accident of all time has after 30 years become a nature reserve, the same place that’s supposed to be uninhabitable for tens of thousands of years.

“A team of US and Ukrainian ecologists set up traps to explore how small mammals were responding. They caught a range of voles, mice and shrews – and found that the abundance of animals and the diversity of species was more or less identical both inside and outside the exclusion zone.”
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160421-the-chernobyl-exclusion-zone-is-arguably-a-nature-reserve
And more so, let’s compare this to renewables such as Wind, which every year kills untold amounts of endangered birds, and Solar which forced the relocation of a Desert Tortoise species. Guess Renewables aren’t the environmental saint they are made out to be after all?
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/wind-turbines-killing-endangered-birds
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/08/15/the-greens-and-solar-industry-agree-on-climate-but-they-cant-agree-on-the-california-desert/

B-BUT MUH NUCLEAR WASTE

Hasn’t been an issue for decades, Nuclear waste can be recycled back into fuel, the reason the US is storing nuclear waste instead of recycling it is thanks once again to boomer anti-nuclear activists preventing a closed fuel cycle from being developed in the US and forcing the Nuclear Industry to store nuclear waste. I wonder why they are so scared of this solution being implemented?
https://whatisnuclear.com/recycling.html

B-BUT THE PUBLIC DOESN’T SUPPORT IT!
That’s what happens when anti-nuclear activists and pro renewable advocates spend decades fear mongering about Nuclear Power and slandering it every way possible, if the public actually knew the facts about Nuclear and the big picture in relation to fossil fuels, they wouldn’t fall for such propaganda, and in fact, attitudes in some countries to Nuclear are improving, a poll in Australia asked if people were willing to support Nuclear Energy being developed to reduce Co2 emissions, 51% agreed, this is important because before, most Australians were not in favour of Nuclear Energy.
https://www.roymorgan.com/findings/8144-nuclear-power-in-australia-september-2019-201910070349
There is also the issue of the mainstream media (at least in my country) overwhelmingly supporting renewables and talking down Nuclear Energy, never giving a balanced viewpoint of each to the public by perpetuating lies made by Renewables advocates.

B-BUT RENEWABLES ARE BETTER

Here’s where the beating really starts.
Renewables are Unreliable, expensive to maintain, aren’t as environmentally friendly as said to be and require a myriad of support in order to offset issues with intermittency (when the wind and sun goes down) and the major grid infrastructure upgrades needed to support renewables, renewables are inherently inferior to Nuclear Energy, Renewables, on top of construction and maintenance, need energy storage to solve intermittency issues, because unfortunately for most developed countries, energy demand kicks in when Renewables are teetering out of the grid, Pumped Hydro is an idea solution, but unfortunately Pumped Hydro is dependent on geography and adequate rainfall to be viable, and there are also issues with habitat lost from reservoirs and the health of water courses that may be affected by such reservoirs, that leaves batteries which bring problems of their own related to proper disposal, heavy metal contamination. Overall, need for energy storage adds another cost to supposedly superior renewables. There is also the issue of Wind and Solar having a high land footprint compared to other energy sources, Wind takes up 70.6 Acres per MW while Solar needs 43.5, all that land that could have been habitats for tortoises, farm land etc. lets compare that to Nuclear or even Coal which only take up 12.7 and 12.2 Acres per MW respectively, it’s clear Renewables are inferior in energy density compared to Nuclear.
https://strata.org/pdf/2017/footprints-info.pdf

B-BUT I’M RIGHT YOU’RE WRONG BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH!! CLIMATE CHANGE DENIER!
Face it, Nuclear Energy is the future whether you like it or not, Renewables will be remembered in history as a colossal waste of time and resources in a period of history where we are racing against time to curb our Co2 emissions, renewables belong in the ashbin of history and the sooner people realize the scam renewables is the better.

>>11060808
>>11060809
>>11060812
>>11060815
>>11060817
>>11060819
>>11060820
>>11060822
holy based RENEWABLES BTFO

*ahem

FUCK RENEWABLES

this thread is beautiful
this time OP was not a faggot

>>11060808

Solar output has been doubling every two years, it's about fifteen years till we have enough solar to run the world without nuclear. We wouldn't be able to build the power plants in time to outrun solar proliferation.
Coal<nuclear<solar

>>11060808
>Nuclear Energy
Too dangerous

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2019/09/12/its-really-ok-if-japan-dumps-radioactive-fukushima-water-into-the-ocean/#480274d7b298

>In a news briefing in Tokyo earlier this week, Japan’s Minister of the Environment, Yoshiaki Harada, told reporters that Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) will have to dump radioactive water from its crippled Fukushima nuclear power plants into the Pacific Ocean.

>The funny thing is that putting this water in the ocean is actually the best way to handle it. And that’s because it’s contaminated mainly with tritium, the least radioactive, and least harmful, of all radioactive elements. All of the other radioactive elements have been removed from the water by chemical treatment down to low levels and the amount of other elements in the water is relatively small and wouldn’t pose a hazard diluted to this degree.

>Critics, like Greenpeace, weighed in with the usual every-atom-is-dangerous and this water should be stored and treated forever. They don’t seem to understand the radiation and chemistry of tritium.

>But few do.

>>11060909
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/05/06/the-reason-renewables-cant-power-modern-civilization-is-because-they-were-never-meant-to/#63384600ea2b

>>11060819

Man alot of the data you are presenting is deliberately misleading.

>Nuclear waste can be recycled back into fuel, the reason the US is storing nuclear waste instead of recycling it is thanks once again to boomer anti-nuclear activists preventing a closed fuel cycle from being developed in the US and forcing the Nuclear Industry to store nuclear waste

So in this scenario nuclear waste can be endlessly reused until it becomes inert? So we dont need to mine any more nuclear fuel?
And it works like a perpetual motion machine?

And all the government's in the world know this, but they aren't doing it because the bowed to protestors?

This is insanity.
But yeah man, if nuclear power plants run for free, forever and don't produce radioactive waste....
I mean sure, let's hook that up.

Hey guys remember that time anon told you that story about how planet earth developed a renewable, cheap, permanent solution to generating electricity, but then the mean icky protestors forced the world governments into agreeing to abandon the project and throw all the fuel away :(

>>11060939
>Man alot of the data you are presenting is deliberately misleading.

That's exactly what happened, anti-nuclear greenies didn't want recycling to get off the ground because otherwise the problem of Nuclear waste would be solved and they lose their political boogeyman nuclear waste, now all you hear nowadays from greenies is muh nuclear waste, a problem which they are in part responsible for creating.

>So in this scenario nuclear waste can be endlessly reused until it becomes inert? So we dont need to mine any more nuclear fuel?

Not quite, but it unlocks a huge reserve of fuel that will last a very long time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlMDDhQ9-pE

>And all the government's in the world know this, but they aren't doing it because the bowed to protestors?

yep, that's politics for you, and thank boomers as well

>>11060939
And btw, you want to see misleading? Try renewables advocates crowing about how renewables are cheaper than coal, yet that supposed reduction in cost never makes it down to the consumer? Why is that?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/04/23/if-solar-and-wind-are-so-cheap-why-are-they-making-electricity-more-expensive/#67251d2f1dc6

how will greenrots ever recover?

>>11060808
THORIUM
HORIUM
ORIUM
RIUM
IUM
UM
M

When will thorium take off? It is our only hope and the establishment is not embracing it. Makes me sad.
For those unaware, thorium is basically 10000x better than uranium in every single way.

>>11060961
they can't

>>11060808
Nice try, but nuclear power got no future. During the last decades only a few plants have been build. Many plants are in retirement age or will be within the next 20 years. Almost no plants are even planned. Planning and building nuclear plants takes decades. No investor is willing to wait this long.

Every other kind of power plant can be build much faster. Even large hydro.

>>11060815
Hmmm ya clearly nothing to see here, move along and don't ask questions about why scientists feel playing with superheavy exotic radioactive elements to boil fucking water is *really* the best way to generate electricity

>>11060956
It's new technology man, it's going to be expensive.
But building a power plant is also very costly ;)
So versing an already built power plant that's operational against startup of an alternative energy source isn't really fair.

I will just say this.
If we could trust the government, nuclear would work.
And we tried it for like 70 years, it was pretty lacklustre, and the increased cost and regulations of the nuclear industry were because of all the accidents.
Nuclear only works if we live in a world very different to this one.
And even with all these regulations we still had Fukushima.
So with nuclear a natural disaster can turn any reactor into a nuclear bomb?

If on an alternate timeline we developed cheap solar panels in the 50s instead of nuclear, and right now 70% of earth was powered by solar farms in the desert, and someone discovered nuclear power and suggested it as an alternative to solar, that would sound insane.
"What happens if an earthquake hits?"
"Oh you get a biblical scorched earth scenario and the city has to be abandoned"
"...and what if a technician makes a mistake"
"....scorched earth"
"Terrorist attack on the plant"
"Oh yeah you get the biggest suicide bombings of all time...and scorched earth"
"And the waste?"
"Well we could recycle it (apparently) but we usually outsource third party waste disposal companies, and they illegally dump it, but we're immune from prosecution so everybody wins.

I just don't think nuclear is a viable option, and one final thing though.
We already tried it. It didn't work.
As soon as solar is installed it's basically free after initial investment. Fire and forget.

>>11060994
>If we could trust the government,
And there's the glaring flaw in your brilliant plan.

>>11060984
Maybe in countries where green parties have paralyzed energy policy, but any country that doesn't concern themselves with anti progress greenies and is concerned with curbing climate change is building gigawatts of Nuclear capacity, sorry.

"state-run power companies in China have brought more than 15 nuclear reactors online since 2016. The country has also made significant progress in promoting its first domestically developed reactor: the Hualong One, based on American and French technology."


Even the French public see the shambles that is Germany's transition to renewables and are having second thoughts.

https://pastebin.com/Jd90fbER

put news links in pastebin because dumb fuck bot wont let me post them

>>11061001
Nuclear power is not progress, it's simply a higher risk means of the same end goal (boiling water to turn a turbine)
It's excessive for what it provides and does so at a risk of catastrophic failure should a natural disaster or human error occur. Clean coal is simply the best, most cost effective, and safest way to provide power at this time. Get back to me when Lockheed gets their compact fusion reactor going.

>>11060998
That was my point man ;)

>>11060994
>It's new technology man, it's going to be expensive.

Ahh, so why don't we spend some of that money on building a few Nuclear power plants instead of spending decades solving teething issues?

>But building a power plant is also very costly ;)

You can take that smug face right off because I've already explained why that's not true.

>And we tried it for like 70 years, it was pretty lacklustre, and the increased cost and regulations of the nuclear industry were because of all the accidents.

Wrong, we tried it and it worked just as intended in France. They have the cheapest electricity in Europe and are the biggest exporter of it (mainly to Germany who abandoned Nuclear and went to renewables :)


As for your little scenario, what would happen if Solar was invented in the 50s? Well it already sorta was and it was completely useless, it has taken all that time for it to become efficient enough and useful with battery energy storage

The conversation instead would be something like:

"Hey Gus, why don't we get a bunch of PV cells and use them to make a power plant!?"

"What happens if the sun goes down?"

"..."

And I just think renewables are a complete scam.
We are wasting billions on them
And no it's not free once installed you stupid fucking cunt, the cells lose 1% capacity a year so only have a lifespan of 20 years then you have to replace it all, stop lying.

>>11061012
And how exactly is nuclear superior to clean coal?

>>11061018

It doesn't emit CO2 or other pollutants like uranium and thorium in the flash into the environment to be economically viable.

>>11061018

Well U-235 has around 3,000,000 x more energy per kg, making fuel cost much lower, even including enrichment. Nuclear power works, clean coal doesn't. You can't take out all the CO2 and maintain low-cost of power.

>>11060984
red tape
>>11060993
>>11060994
>>11061004
hurr durr nukes are scary and dangerous.

>>11061012
I didn't mean to be smug man, I was just saying.

If solar power output has doubled every 2 years.
And solar panel price is decreasing almost exponentially, then I think it's inevitable.
But if solar doesn't work as you are claiming then yeah don't use it.
But my data suggests solar is viable as a permanent solution.

So my opinion, based on my research, is if I had to pick I would pick solar over nuclear.

I have been wrong before though, maybe I'm wrong now.

>>11060911

What's even funnier is that Fukushima was a light water reactor, meaning they used natural occurring H2O as a coolant and moderator. All water has miniscule traces of tritium in it.

However, reactors fission process produces fission products that decay and give off radiation in the process. When gamma Ray's are emitted, they undergo a photoelectric effect in the tritium in the water that gives off neutrons and contribute to shutdown activity. Thus process consumes the tritium.

In short. The water being dumped in the ocean has LESS average tritium content than naturally occurring water.

The decontamination concerns are literal anti-nuclear kabuki theatre.

>>11061001
So you are a Chinese government shill? Nice.

>>11061034
>And solar panel price is decreasing almost exponentially, then I think it's inevitable.

Like i said before, people keep saying Rneweables will get cheaper, renewables will get cheaper, but for some bizarre reason electricity has gotten MORE expensive, how can this be explained?

>it's inevitable.

usually once people start touting an idea is inevitable it usually means they are afraid it will fail

>>11061041
if i were a chinese shill i would be rooting for renewables, no better way to ruin a nation's economy

>>11061034

You would he dumb.

Solar's cheap price comes from poor manufacture of chinesium panels dumped on the market in the mid-2000s.

All thus involved dumping tons of chemicals, lead, and cadmium in the environment. These panels will be lucky to get 15 years of use before needing to be recycled.

However, recycling destroys solar's cost effectiveness but limits the millions of kilometers of lead and cadmium that would be dumped into the environment.

All for an energy source that still has to overcome piss poor latency.

Even erecting panels in a desert would still have latency issues at night and the power losses over distance would only reduce efficiency.

>>11061041
>ran out of arguments
>ad hominem
if I was a chink i would rather take the %.00001=~ chance of a nuclear incident than to breathe in NOx every day

>>11061034
That's why solar wins. It becomes cheaper every year. Nuclear is already expensive and becomes even more expensive.

>>11061034
>And solar panel price is decreasing almost exponentially, then I think it's inevitable.

You're reading an exponential off a cliff. Human population growth has been increasing exponentially. But we're not going to outnumber the atoms in the universe in a million years. Things increase exponentially until they don't.

And there are always tricks in these reports. Including cost of transmission and reliability will tell you a lot more.

>>11061050

Because it's not allowed to take advantage of economies of scale, however, once erected they print money.

This is why CA and Germany have had electricity prices skyrocket while they decommission plants.

>>11061043
>electricity has gotten MORE expensive

your utility company is ripping you off, that's why
just put solar panels on your roof and you don't have to worry about price rises, it's that easy

>>11061057

>Germany's electricity isn't at least in part state controlled so the electric Jews can screw you over

>>11061043
The process of our transition to renewables only just started, no one said we were going to costlessly solve the energy crisis overnight.
Electricity prices have been increasing globally for decades, perhaps it's because the majority of electricity is produced with fossil fuels and the price of fossil fuels has been increasing.

Germany is on the cutting edge of renewables with the world's lowest emissions in the world, and there electricity price has now stabilised,

You are entitled to your opinion but if you don't understand that initial costs of a project have to be recouped with high initial prices then I can't sway you.

>>11061050
>your utility company is ripping you off, that's why
You haven't read the posts at all have you? Look at this >>11060809, note 'Renewables sucharge' indicated by the blue bar, that's why electricity has increased in price, the government has to subsidize renewables in order to make them 'cheap' then makes the taxpayer pay for it, absolute insanity.

>>11061053
no, because there is no economy of scale in building huge power plants, it only works if you can produce many similar units, that's the case for solar panels

also decommissioning nuclear plants and waste disposal takes decades and eats up your profit's, that's another reason why utilities don't like nuclear

>>11061066

Except Germany's price of electricity increased five fold while emissions have gone up with their increased reliance on Russian gas and burning brown coal. When they aren't buying French electricity.

All at the upfront cost of 220 billion and rolling brown outs.

Comparatively, the UAE, an OPEC nation, spent 24 billion on nuclear and has enough energy to power in door ski resorts on a desert.

>>11061067
actually fossil fuels are heavily subsidized. dropping these subsidies and introducing a carbon tax would also help nuclear

>>11061068

Except increased capacity relies on local nuclear plants. Large facilities producing hundreds of GW of power for a city and surrounding suburbs.

Solar can't compete, even with large facilities condensed in prime geographic areas.

Distributed solar can be useful for dynamic load, but if you are trying to use it for baseload you are causing a German scenario and everyone knows it.

Even Denmark is anticipating this when they shutdown their own nuclear power generation.

>>11061068

Decom doesn't eat profits since every plant is required to include those costs in their upfront plans.

>>11061066
>The process of our transition to renewables only just started

Lies, It started over a decade years ago and has achieved almost nothing.

>no one said we were going to costlessly solve the energy crisis overnight.

What if i told you we could solve it right now using a proven, reliable cheap green form of energy? Instead of spending decades trying to make Renewables work.

>Germany is on the cutting edge of renewables with the world's lowest emissions in the world, and there electricity price has now stabilised,

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/10/world/europe/germany-coal-climate.html

Because they have realized how much they have fucked up and are postponing decommissioning of coal plants to prop up the floundering renewables.

https://www.voanews.com/europe/official-germany-could-slow-phase-out-coal

>>11061071
Are you sure about the 5 fold power increase? Google says Germany went from 24 euro cents per kWh in 2010 to 30 euro cents in 2018, I think your source might be wrong man

>>11061080

Your source doesn't take into account the energy tax used to pay for their less reliable electricity. Feed in tariffs of the last twenty years cost tax payers 50 cents per Kwh.

Get your head out of your ass thinking that government subsidies aren't a bandaid to cover the fact that Germany fucked up.

>>11061080

My source is Der Spiegel.

Get fucked.

>>11061078
I read both of those links and neither support your argument man, as a last resort you could copy and paste the relevant paragraph. But the first link is actually pro renewable...

>What if i told you we could solve it right now using a proven, reliable cheap green form of energy? Instead of spending decades trying to make Renewables work.

They told us that about nuclear in the 1950s and it didn't work....

So you can tell it to me all you want, it's the opposite of the evidence though.

.....are you a shill? Lol
Just posting random links with suitable keywords like a bot is confusing me haha

>>11061100

>nuclear gets kneecapped in the 70s because muh china syndrome and TMH, then further in the 80s with chernobyl and greenpeace conflating it with nuclear weapons

Meanwhile, despite shutting down more plants and not building much more, we have managed to keep nuclear at 20% of total power produced just by extending and uprating older reactors.

And everywhere that keeps shutting down their plants sees price spikes.

>>11061100

>opposite of evidence
>there are people who think this unironically

>>11061100
>I read both of those links and neither support your argument man

what the fuck are you talking about?

>They told us that about nuclear in the 1950s and it didn't work....

I've shown you examples around the world where it works and what the benefits of it having worked are, and what happens when countries shut down their Nuclear Power.

>So you can tell it to me all you want, it's the opposite of the evidence though.

Same goes for you

>Just posting random links with suitable keywords like a bot is confusing me haha

you're quickly losing patience with me

Germany's electricity prices increased by 5 euro cents per kWh, not a factor of five. But yeah if I knew renewables would increase the price of my electricity by a factor of five I wouldn't support renewables.
So I understand where you are coming from.

>>11061104

Have you ever thought about making a podcast or something of the like? I would love to take this all in, in an audio/video format.

This is all terribly interesting!

>>11061110

>look ma, I posted subsidized costs again. So long as we make them pay 50 cents per kwh via tax on top of their energy bill it doesn't look so bad

>>11061110
>since 2011

if you look since 2006 it's more than 4 cents..>>11060809

>>11061107
I can't have a debate with you if you are going to drastically misrepresent your data, mixing up 15% and 500% is pretty wild.

>you're quickly losing patience with me

The saying is "I am quickly losing patience with me"

I'm not losing patience with you man, this is a good debate I'm just deeply confused by alot of it

>>11061118

Yeah I was responding to this :)


>Except Germany's price of electricity increased five fold while emissions have gone up with their increased reliance on Russian gas and burning brown coal. When they aren't buying French electricity.

>>11061126

>mixing up 15% for 500% because I refuse to take in the subsidies of 50 cents/kwh levied at consumers to still have the highest priced enegy in europe

I'd tell you to stop being disingenuous, but that's been the anti-nuke playbook since the beginning.

>>11060993
>It's only a model...

>>11061136
You wanna play it prison rules huh?
No reference, no source, possibly fabricated?
That's cool.

Well did you know renewables have reduced the cost of electricity by a factor of five.

Debate won.

>>11061145

No problem.

I did your homework for you. Somebody has to when it comes to "arguing" with anti-nukes.

And considering you've been spouting unsourced and patently untrue statements the entire thread in the face of evidence I only wonder now why you'd call attention to it.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.spiegel.de/international/germany/german-failure-on-the-road-to-a-renewable-future-a-1266586-amp.html

>>11061145
>Well did you know renewables have reduced the cost of electricity by a factor of five.

Delusional.

>>11061151
Posting an essay that would take an hour to read where the link headline is different to the publication takes alot of finesse man ;) knowing no one would read it and just assume it was valid shows a great understanding of human behaviour.
It must not be your first time at this rodeo lol.

If posting fradulant data, being caught, and still having the confidence to accuse me of being untruthful without any evidence works for you in a scientific debate then this is a debate we all lose.

Go back to the 1950s when your theories weren't so easy to disprove.
You know before the meltdowns, and the accidents, and the clandestine waste disposal, before we had alternatives.

Go back to when nuclear made sense, because we didn't understand how it worked yet ;)

Its pretty fucking blatant you're a troll

>>11060829
>>11060887
>>11060903
>>11060907

Quote yourself here OP.

>>11060939
>This is insanity.

No, is more about the byproducts of nuclear reprocessing being too usefull for nuclear proliferation, which is a can of worms no one wants to open, after all you don't need much math to realize that if there is more nuclear material in circulation the posibilities of such material falling into the wrong hands also increase.

Then add to that nuclear research is expensive, not only because it requires lots of specialiced personel and equipment but also because the regulations put for safety measures increase the cost, and not all of those regulations come from the government but from bussiness that do not want the bad reputation of being a clumsy nuclear material manager.

Also... yeah, antinuclear activists saying that it's the worst thing in the world and renewables taking away pieces from a cake that grows too slowly or is simply stagnant, but those are just very vocal, and therefore they get the blame of things that they do and don't.

>>11060808
Yes but since nuclear plants arent built in a day, we should halt all immigration first don't you think?

>>11061072
The fossil fuel subsidies are bigger than even measurable with dollars given and taxes not levied. They're subsidized in environmental effect. Increased healthcare costs for early respiratory disease, due to pollution from burning basically anything except natural gas in a very modern plant, should also be added to the subsidies.