>>12246947>To use your own juvenile rhetoric: wrong, and not an argument.Wrong on both counts.
https://clcouncil.org/economists-statement/Do you enjoy constantly getting BTFO?
>Not responsive to my point. This isn't close to propaganda; it's on the level of a powerpoint presentation, with a single (extremely banal) image.It summarizes their position that nuclear power needs to be increased. You can also see the following:
Multiple options exist to reduce energy supply sector GHG
emissions (robust evidence, high agreement). These include energy
efficiency improvements and fugitive emission reductions in fuel
extraction as well as in energy conversion, transmission, and distribution systems; fossil fuel switching; and low-GHG energy supply technologies such as renewable energy (RE), nuclear power, and carbon
dioxide capture and storage (CCS). [7.5, 7.8.1, 7.11]
Decarbonizing (i.e. reducing the carbon intensity of) electricity generation is a key component of cost-effective mitigation
strategies in achieving low-stabilization levels (430–530ppm
CO2eq); in most integrated modelling scenarios, decarbonization happens more rapidly in electricity generation than in the
industry, buildings and transport sectors (medium evidence, high
agreement). In the majority of low-stabilization scenarios, the share
of low-carbon electricity supply (comprising RE, nuclear and CCS)
increases from the current share of approximately 30% to more than
80% by 2050, and fossil fuel power generation without CCS is phased
out almost entirely by 2100. [7.11]
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_chapter7.pdf>Says everyone who isn't an investor or lobbyist for solar and wind.Like who?
