• ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    While I am inclined to agree: those upfront costs translate directly into time. Time that we don’t necessarily have. Solar and wind are deployable and much less complex of a facility to run overall. For me it isn’t about the best energy producer as it is whichever method gets us of fossil fuels the fastest.

    Nuclear has long term capabilities and should be used, don’t get me wrong, but solar and wind are bridges, if you will, to when it can have all the time and money it needs.

    • CleoTheWizard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      Yes but that doesn’t have much to do with what I was speaking on. In the short term, we should be heavily investing in solar and wind but we shouldn’t have an anti-nuclear stance.

      So when people come along with an educated view of nuclear energy and talk about disasters and what not, I’m just making sure they know that’s not the sticking point. Nuclear isn’t dangerous, it’s just expensive and takes time to build.

      Nuclear needs to be invested in for the long term, that’s the clarification. Until then, it’s wind and solar all the way. However, I’m concerned that we could end up in a future where wind and solar rely on these massive batteries which aren’t much better for everyone involved unless we recycle.

      I’m not a nuclear absolutist, it’s just uneducated to say that nuclear is bad and shouldn’t be supported. It has applications, just later in our future

      • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Well no one in this chain of comments was saying nuclear is bad and shouldn’t be supported.

        There is commentary on the kind of profit motives that result in things like: failed nuclear energy facilities and cobalt slave mining, though.