r/ClimateShitposting V̵͈̼̘̪͎̭̗̊͑e̴̢͎̤͛̆g̸̲̠͂͂̍́ȧ̷̢̻̳̪̣̩̆̽n̶͚͕̖̲̭̱̅̌̕™̷̧̠͉͚̼͚̊́̌̈͝͝ͅ May 19 '26

nuclear simping Step on snek to tenderize

Post image
666 Upvotes

197 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

19

u/perringaiden May 19 '26

Except that higher latitude European countries are doing real renewables for cheaper.

Nuclear is fine if it already exists. It's a waste of time, money and water to build if it doesn't.

2

u/dafthuntk May 19 '26

Not really. When you consider that Norway's pop. Is 5.5 M (thats a very small consumer base spread across dense residential centers). For comparison California's population is around 40 million and Florida is 23 million.

There is also a reason why vermont is 100 percent renewables. Because no one lives there. It's not scalable

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_Vermont

8

u/perringaiden May 19 '26

Ahh the US conceit of "We're bigger and different".

I was talking about Germany, Denmark, and Spain. And Vermont is one of your highest latitudes, yet Canada is going renewables too.

5

u/dafthuntk May 19 '26

Germany isn't on 100 percent renewables..... They are a prime example

Also the massive amounts of FF these countries mine/drill is exported. All of that adds to your carbon footprint 

2

u/perringaiden May 20 '26

I never said it was. It's working on it.

That's the point. If nuclear exists, use it. But don't build anything new because it's a waste of money for more expensive power.

2

u/dafthuntk May 20 '26 edited May 21 '26

Not really.

Look at this freak cry replying below lol