nytimes.com
www.nytimes.com

My impression is that this is a PR push, designed to avoid having to invest in renewables, and let them keep on burning gas and coal, rather than something likely to come to fruition.

  • Bizzle@lemmy.worldEnglish
    19·
    9 hours ago

    Honestly, I know this is a polarizing issue, but nuclear is clean and pretty much safe and you don’t need batteries for it. Lithium batteries of course being an ecological nightmare. Bring it on I say.

    • Nightwatch Admin@feddit.nlEnglish
      6·
      5 hours ago

      Mining for nuclear is an ecological disaster, and is often done in poor countries under awful conditions, especially lung cancer due to the radon emissions of uranium.

    • silence7@slrpnk.netOPEnglish
      13·
      9 hours ago

      Mostly:

      • New nuclear is really expensive
      • It also takes a long time to deliver
      • The new reactor examples in here consist of reactors from suppliers who haven’t done that before

      So it has the feel of a plan to promise to spend a lot of money several years from now, and get a lot of PR points today, and quietly cancel the project later.

      • Bizzle@lemmy.worldEnglish
        3·
        9 hours ago

        Well that is, indeed, wack. I appreciate your perspective, I can’t believe I missed the “corporations lying for money” angle. I’m usually on top of it.