You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
15 points

I think this matter boils down to the following: Nuclear is better than fossil fuels (by a significant margin) but the spin up time and investment is significant, too significant for many. Such little investment has been made in the last 10 or so years that investing now when the world is on the precipice of being able (though clearly, not very willing) to use wholly renewable sources seems like a better investment, even with the various pitfalls of each respective source. Energy storage has come a long way and with significant leaps every few years, it seems that energy storage + renewables is the way forward but it’s sad to see the missed nuclear opportunity. Like so many other promising and environmentally friendly(er) ideas, it has unfortunately been passed over when the time was right and will not be utilised sufficiently.

permalink
report
reply

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

!climate@slrpnk.net

Create post

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

Community stats

  • 4.7K

    Monthly active users

  • 6.7K

    Posts

  • 30K

    Comments

Community moderators