you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 17 points 2 years ago (2 children)

By not picking, you are picking fossil fuels. Because we can't fully replace everything with solar/wind yet, and fossil fuels are already being burned as we speak.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    No, give me an option that doesn’t make a part of the world uninhabitable or increases climate change.

    That just a stupid comparison and is there any reason why we can’t also do wind solar thermal hydro also? It’s fossil fuels or nuclear and that’s it?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    No, give me an option that doesn’t make a part of the world uninhabitable or increases climate change.

    That just a stupid comparison and is there any reason why we can’t also do wind solar thermal hydro also? It’s fossil fuels or nuclear and that’s it huh?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago

    I never said we can't do also wind, solar, thermal, and hydro; in fact we have to do all of them. But, hydro isn't possible in most places (and also makes "a part of the world uninhabitable" too — look at how much the Three Gorges Dam displaced, for example), nor is geothermal. And wind and solar are inconsistent — great as part of it, but they can't be the entirety of the grid, unless you want the entire country to go dark on a cloudy day, cuz we simply can't make batteries store that much.

  • source
  • parent