• poVoq@slrpnk.netM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      1 year ago

      For the article, which you apparently didn’t read:

      “Given enough time, it may be possible to build a nuclear power plant to the highest safety standards and remain economically relevant, even taking into account the costs of storing nuclear waste for thousands of years,” the scientists concluded. “However, building nuclear power plants requires many years of planning and construction and is expensive, while the climate crisis demands urgency and requires such large investments that profitability is paramount.”

      • DessertStorms@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        “However, building nuclear power plants requires many years of planning and construction and is expensive, while the climate crisis demands urgency and requires such large investments that profitability is paramount.”

        …they say as they ignore the glaring fact that prioritising profit over everything else is literally what got us in to this urgency-demanding mess in the first place, and that depending on the “good will” of people who will refuse to act until and unless something is proven to make them money is only ever going to continue serving them, not the rest of the planet.

        I think the person you replied to is valid in wondering why anyone thinks this is a positive development when all it is is more fucking around within the rules of capitalism and somehow expecting capitalism to change…

      • Claidheamh@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Pretty sure what he meant is that who cares about profit? Not a discussion we should be having when in a climate crisis brought about by chasing profits.

        I say let’s decarbonise ASAP, while looking into a long term zero GHG emissions power grid. There is no one-size fits all when it comes to energy generation and distribution.