comment: >
  
  Very few does. We usually reject the idea of only renewables, because it's an unstable experimental system even if we built a continent wide smart grid. Actually I don't think I've ever heard someone rejecting renewables, that's actually absurd.
context: Is this because of a lower amount of gas imports from russia or? >
  
  More working from home, warmer winters reducing power demand, repressed economies demanding less production, a bit more renewable energy production. >
  
  Winters are getting colder in ireland not warmer, out summers are heating up though which is nice >
  
  It is right up until the beautiful ecology of Ireland starts changing rapidly and whole species begin to die off or migrate. >
  
  Ireland is already fucking it's most pristine habitats for compost, they don't need climate change to do so >
  
  Could you elaborate on that habitat for compost? >
  
  I assume they're refering to peat extraction, though I think Ireland uses peat for fuel more than compost and that's been prohibited for most people as of 2022. >
  
  They export about half a million tons of peat a year for horticultural use, which equates to CO2 emissions of about 192 kilotons >
  
  How does half a million tons of peat equal to almost 200 million tons of carbon? >
  
  You're totally right I messed up my calculations I'll edit the post. >
  
  For the EU, US, and Canada every wind turbine, solar panel, and replacement to more energy efficient light bulb/appliance is less money to Putin’s war. >
  
  And nuclear reactor …. >
  
  Nuclear reactors take a decade or more to plan and build. I really hope that this war is over a decade from now and that Putin has moved on to another plane. >
  
  They only take "a decade or more" to build in nuclear-unfriendly regions.
  South Korea and Japan are consistently churning out <5 year reactors. Even when breaking ground (not just adding on more.)
  The right time to start building them is now. We'll need them in 5 years. We'll need them in 10 years. We'll need them in 20 years. >
  
  So the entire EU, the US, and Canada? >
  
  Yes. 
  Point is, it doesn't have to take that long, there's no technical reason for it.
  I hate the "it takes at least a decade" argument because it's become the last refuge of the anti-nuclear crowd. 
  The waste argument is gone, the security argument is gone, the cost argument is gone, so now all that's left is "it'll take to long". >
  
  I'm pro-nuclear, it's a safe and reliable form of power. Unfortunately I am also realistic and know that there's many people against it who will fight tooth and nail to prevent it from being built. That combined with the safety regulations, bureaucracy, and lack of investor interest means that even 10 years would be significantly faster than most projects this century. I'm in favour of building it, but it isn't a realistic alternative to Russian oil and gas right now. >
  
  You mean if you make an effort to change you can fix things? >
  
  Except that what we're doing, funding unreliable sources that rely on fossil fuels and rejecting nuclear power, goes directly against what experts say will do the most. Unreliable sources only work to a certain extent. It's very important to look at all of the statistics, not just a randome number chosen to sell a story 
  And let's not mention us simply relocating our pollution to poorer countries. I'm also curious if this drop includes bs like paying off emissions by planting a few trees. >
  
  im really bored of pro-nuclear people just throwing off any other options as useless or even evil.
  I'm pro-nuclear, but the fact of the matter is that there are strong downsides to it, especially fickle public opinion. We need every tool in our toolbelt to progress. >
  
  I've never seen a pro nuclear person rejecting renewable... >
  
  Then you haven't roamed around Reddit enough. There's plenty of that. (I'm NOT saying that EVERY pro-nuclear Redditor rejects alternatives).