• coyootje@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    16 hours ago

    Don’t get me wrong, I agree with you that the other options are better. I’m just saying that nuclear can be a good temporary step in between to buy us time to perform the complete transition. And I get what you’re saying about hydrogen but with the issues surrounding drinking water I don’t know if we should really lean on that too much.

    • Señor Mono@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      14 hours ago

      The core difference here is: if we speed things up we can increase wind and solar and battery storage in the blink of an eye. Take a look at China’s new capacity.

      Nuclear not so much. Combined with the follow up questions of end storage or even getting the cheap uranium (Russia) there is no real reason to debate.

    • VibeSurgeon@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      14 hours ago

      It’s hardly viable as a temporary step when the time to bring a new one online is 20 years. The economics are already bad today and have been trending to be worse every year, while renewables and batteries are trending in the complete opposite direction.

      The time for transitionary measures has passed. Renewables and batteries are here today. All we need to do is build it.

    • madde@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      15 hours ago

      New reactors take decades to build. We need to have energy autonomy and move towards net 0 now. We can’t wait for shiny new reactors, which will be ready in 2050, if we start planning now.