• Hugohase
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 years ago

    There are just better/faster options…

      • Hugohase
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        I don’t agree with you but either way that doesn’t change the fact that nuclear is just slow, expensive and a bad idea in 2024.

        • PunnyName@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 years ago

          How is nuclear a bad idea? It’s one of the best options. Sure it’s slow and expensive, but once it’s up and running, it’s safe, and even less radioactive than coal.

          • MrMakabar@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 years ago

            Because solar and wind can be deployed much faster. You rather easily have a decade of extra coal or gas emissions, if you built nuclear today.

              • MrMakabar@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 years ago

                Sure, but why would you built a nuclear power plant, when you are faster in having a clean grid with wind and solar. The workers building the npp could built more wind and solar after all.

              • imgcat@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 years ago

                No. The total amount of money available for energy research and construction is a given amount. If it’s better spent on solar and wind that’s it.