- cross-posted to:
- climate@slrpnk.net
- nyt_gift_articles@sopuli.xyz
- cross-posted to:
- climate@slrpnk.net
- nyt_gift_articles@sopuli.xyz
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.
You must log in or register to comment.
In 10 years they’ll be swimming in waste with no permanent storage facilities in existence, a little will leak due to cist cutting, and they’ll let those shell companies go bankrupt to avoid ever having to deal with it.
Investing billions
Weren’t the headlines a week or two ago about Microsoft trying to get taxpayer funded aid for reopening 3-mile Island? Companies shouldn’t be asking for taxpayer funded handouts when they are basically printing money at this point.
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.
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.
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.
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.
