• flipht@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    1 year ago

    Renewable instead of nuclear, but nuclear instead of coal.

    We need a mix. Centralization isn’t the biggest problem. Literally anything we can do to reduce emissions is worth doing, and we won’t be going 100% on anything, so best to get started on the long term projects now so that we can stop turning on new plants based on combustion.

    • Olgratin_Magmatoe@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Even if it takes 2 decades to get a new plant going, it’s a nuclear plant’s worth of fossil fuels we don’t need any more, and therefore worth doing.

      If it isn’t fossil fuels, it’s automatically better.

      • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The main problem with nuclear power plants isn’t the radiation or the waste or the risk of accident. It’s that they cost so damn much they’re rarely profitable, especially in open electricity markets. 70-80% of the cost of the electricity is building the plant, and without low interest rates and a guaranteed rate when finished it doesn’t make economic sense to build them.

        The latest nuclear plant in the US is in Georgia and is $17 billion over budget and seven years later than expected.

        • Olgratin_Magmatoe@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It’s that they cost so damn much

          The cost of continued fossil fuel use is far higher.

          rarely profitable

          Profit should not be the motivation of preventing our climate disaster from getting worse. If the private sector isn’t able to handle it, then the government needs to do so itself.

          And besides, the only reason fossil fuels are so competitive is because we are dumping billions of dollars in subsidies for them. Those subsidies should instead go towards things that aren’t killing the planet.

          • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Would it be better to dump billions into nuclear power plants that won’t come online for a decade at least, or to dump billions into renewables that can be online and reducing emissions in under a year?

            • Olgratin_Magmatoe@startrek.website
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              We should worldwide be putting trillions into both. Renewables should be first priority, but not all locations have good solar, wind, and battery options.

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

                  That’s the exact argument people have been making for 60 years, and look where we are now. Around 80% of the world’s energy is still from fossil fuels. Do you want to continue making the same mistakes as the previous generations?

        • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Isn’t a lot of that due to organization structures in US power Markets? I remember reading that a lot of times costs on electrical power go nuts due to near fraudulent managers.

    • cloud@lazysoci.al
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      No we don’t, you can use only renewables and just cut the useless spending