A nuclear plant's closure was hailed as a green win. Then emissions went up

[hunter]

4. No, it is not.

There are eight billion humans on this planet and this population is supported by high density energy resources almost entirely derived from fossil fuels.

Even if all eight billion of us adopt hybrid gas-wind-solar energy systems, and the more affluent among us reduce our participation in the "consumer" economy, the world is not saved.

The only demonstrated way of halting human population growth, aside from Mother Nature's usual programs of widespread suffering and death, or the propensity of humans to engage in war, seems to be the economic and political empowerment of women. This often begins with the basics -- things like flush toilets, modern water and sewage treatment systems, kitchen appliances, industrialized agriculture, and yes, education and employment outside the home. These modern necessities all require high density energy resources.

The only energy resource capable of displacing fossil fuels entirely is nuclear power.

I find it very doubtful that non-nuclear fully "renewable" energy systems could support even half the world's current population.

Who should suffer and die to support our renewable energy goals?