• Lazhward@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      11 months ago

      The more I learn about nuclear the less it makes sense. It’s a great source of energy but it’s complex and expensive to maintain. Solar, wind, hydro and geothermal are simple and becoming cheaper by the day. It’s hard to imagine a scenario in which we ever require more energy than those combined could provide.

      • DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Solar and Wind can’t create a stable grid, you would need gas/coal backups.

        Hydro is fine but causes a lot of damage to river ecosystems and there is so much hydro you can build.

        Geothermal is probably best source of energy if you can get it but is only viable in few places.

    • Reptorian@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      There’s fusion on the work, so that alleviate some energy issues without nuclear energy and fossil fuels. And fusion might even have less problems, but I don’t know much about it.

      • ChillPenguin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        11 months ago

        The problem is fusion is always 20 years away. It’s essentially limitless energy if we can develop the technology and get it working. Also a lot of places have been moving away from nuclear.

        • Welt@lazysoci.al
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          11 months ago

          Nuclear ain’t nuclear. Uranium fission plants allow for nuclear weapons proliferation. Thorium fission plants don’t melt down, don’t create radioactive waste, and even use uranium fission waste so there’s less remaining. It can’t be used for bombs though. Why do you think the great powers opted for uranium technology? Thorium fission is a viable option, but we should stop just saying “nuclear”.