I wasn’t talking about building new ones. I agree with that. But the ones that already exist shouldn’t be shut down until they are replaced by renewables.
Comment on Not a single one
Natanox@discuss.tchncs.de 6 days agoIt can’t. It takes WAY too long to build, and for what it is the whole work isn’t worth it.
The volume of renewables and batteries (Incl. Sodium-Ion, great tech for the grid) we can produce outpaces nuclear by a long shot, is safer, cleaner, available quicker, easier to install, easier to regulate (once the batteries are up, it’s a combo deal) and especially more “for the people” (you can carry and install smaller units of solar and wind anywhere).
I also thought nuclear (fission) made somewhat sense a few years ago, but it really doesn’t in any way shape or form. Countries who’re dead-set on nuclear such as France are already running into SO mamy problems. They’re building a huge financial pile of shit for the current and next generation to be fucked over by.
Legianus@programming.dev 6 days ago
Bashnagdul@lemmy.world 6 days ago
Why not do all of these things. Build nuclear power plants, do battery storage, do renewables, carbon capture, plant trees etc, etc, etc. if the goal is reverse, stabilize or slow climate change. There isn’t 1 silver bullet, we need to do all the things.
yakko@feddit.uk 6 days ago
Because money is finite. There’s a good rationale for diversity of renewables, but at some point you have to look at the cost benefit analysis and let some ideas go. We could maybe harvest some energy from dropping gold bars into the Mariana trench, but it would take away money from better ideas.
guy@piefed.social 6 days ago
In a cash based capitalists society yes. Time to take the step towards a non scarcity world!
DeckPacker@piefed.social 6 days ago
Then resources and labour would be finite. You can’t just escape scarcity.
And anyone who confuses the problems with capitalism and currency is an idiot and their economic arguments should not be taken seriously.