MIT Review: Can nuclear power really fuel the rise of AI?

[NNadir]

2. I have argued that the destruction of the natural water supply by humanity in California...

...for instance the destruction of the Hetch Hetchy Valley for so called "renewable energy" - the crime for which John Muir founded the Sierra Club to try (unsuccessfully) to prevent - can be reversed by shoving antinuke ignorance into the waste basket where it belongs.

My admittedly "pie in the sky" discussion is here: The Energy Required to Supply California's Water with Zero Discharge Supercritical Desalination.

The famous climate scientist James Hansen has argued, antinuke rhetoric and its acceptance kills people:

Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power (Pushker A. Kharecha* and James E. Hansen Environ. Sci. Technol., 2013, 47 (9), pp 4889–4895)

I believe that what he wrote 13 years ago is still true today. Every day, every single day, air pollution - dangerous fossil fuel waste - kills 19,000 people - without a peep from people who whine about their selective attention to perceived nuclear dangers.

Global burden of 87 risk factors in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019 (Lancet Volume 396, Issue 10258, 17–23 October 2020, Pages 1223-1249).

We are each entitled to have an opinion of what an "abomination" might be. I consider the collapse of the planetary atmosphere, which I lay at the feet of those who embrace antinukism because in almost every case, they know zero about the subject, to be an abomination. I consider the destruction of huge tracts of wilderness - far beyond what John Muir fought against - for so called "renewable energy" to be a crime against the future of humanity and the planet, that is, an abomination.

I consider the deaths of seven million people a year from air pollution, dangerous fossil fuel waste, to be an abomination.

I am unashamed of these strong opinions and I consider them to be of the highest ethical case I can embrace.

My contention is that antinukism kills people, Dr. Hansen's point. I consider these unnecessary deaths to be an abomination.

I reject the calculation that it is OK for 70 million people to die each decade so long as no one ever dies from radiation exposure ever.

Nuclear power need not be without risk, to be vastly superior to everything else. It only needs to be vastly superior to everything else, which it is.

I trust you're having a nice weekend.