It doesn’t need to be nukes. Hydro, solar, wind, and any other mix of power sources is fine, including fossil fuels as an alternative should it be a cloudy, windless week.
Wtf are you talking about? No, any usage of planet-warming compounds for the benefit of creating Twitter incel AI-gen CSAM and TikTok slop videos is unacceptable. Even use of renewables is largely unacceptable, considering the materials (lithium, cobalt, etc) usually entail environmental degradation at best and outright child slavery at worst.
Closed loop is absolutely the right answer, and easily regulated.
As to your other two points, the answer is obvious. Nuclear.
It doesn’t need to be nukes. Hydro, solar, wind, and any other mix of power sources is fine, including fossil fuels as an alternative should it be a cloudy, windless week.
Wtf are you talking about? No, any usage of planet-warming compounds for the benefit of creating Twitter incel AI-gen CSAM and TikTok slop videos is unacceptable. Even use of renewables is largely unacceptable, considering the materials (lithium, cobalt, etc) usually entail environmental degradation at best and outright child slavery at worst.
Yes, but consider how realistic it is to sway 51% of the voting population.
…What?
Hydro is limited by geography, and wind and solar requires a metric fuck ton of oil to produce and replace at EOL. You want clean, you want nukes.
You say that like building a nuclear plant won’t require the metric fuckton of oil to build and replace at eol.
EOL for a nuke plant in measured in centuries. Refueling measured in decades. Wind turbines have end of life somewhere between 5 and 10 years.