You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
16 points

Also it would take too long to build the nuclear plants. I’m all for building them but they’ll take like 10+ years. In the meantime we need to use solar/wind + batteries.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

I agree. With the cost reduction on renewables, grid-scale nuclear doesn’t make a lot of sense anymore.

However, I hope that nuclear will get a revival with SMR technology. Especially as local power facilities for things like data centers and auto plants and other industrial facilities that require as much power as a small nation.

permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points
*

We could have avoided burning a ton of fossil fuels if nuclear hadn’t been demonized in the 60’s, but as it stands, that ship has sailed. Let’s skip that stage on the tech tree and move to fully renewable!

Edit: I guess I should say that I think nuclear will and should continue to be a pivotal part of any smart grid for a long time, since it fills a niche that “true” renewables can’t yet. I just don’t think pushing to build them now is ideal, as it’s more pressing to decommission all fossil fuels plants ASAP by any means necessary (which might mean using only the existing nuclear plants while we ramp up production of other green energy sources)

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

I think you are touching on something important in your edit, which is that diversity of energy source is important for long term grid stability. Solar+battery storage is looking really good right now and I completely agree we need to get on that asap. But there’s no magic bullet, no one technology that negates the need for any other. Headlines inherently reduce complex issues into bite sized information, but it’s important for science literacy to remember that things are complex and nuanced! We need wind and solar and hydroelectric and energy storage and nuclear and more.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

The tricky point here is that fossil fuels were a silver bullet for a long time! There is so much energy in those chemical bonds and they just bubbled out of the ground, so why wouldn’t we use that for everything?

Trying to get people to understand nuance and using the right tool for the job is a lot trickier since most people inherently resist complexity as a solution for replacing a simple technology.

permalink
report
parent
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

  • 4.4K

    Monthly active users

  • 6.2K

    Posts

  • 29K

    Comments

Community moderators