• lorty@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Nuclear had its time. Solar and wind is cheaper, can be distributed and has a fraction of the waste and supply chain issues.

    • ikidd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Solar and wind have location, storage and reliability issues. Nuclear completely takes the place of fossil fuel generation on all those fronts.

    • BigNote@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m increasingly of the same opinion, however, I dislike the fact that even talking about nuclear as a potential bridge technology is such a polarizing issue.

      I am very far from being an expert on the subject and accordingly don’t have a strong opinion either way as to what role, if any, it can usefully play in transitioning to sustainable energy models.

      What I don’t like is the immediate labeling of either side of the issue as somehow automatically being indicative of bad faith or “shilling” on behalf of a larger, nearly conspiratorial interest.

      • jcit878@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        its not that nuclear is bad, but it’s very expensive and takes a long time to commission, where the bridge between now and full scale renewable is on a shorter time frame. if the idea of using nuclear as a transition was made 10-20 years ago, absolutely. now, it’s kinda too late.

        so pretty much the most economical solution is to go all in on renewable from now on

        • BigNote@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Thanks for the response. That makes sense and I think I’m probably on-board.