• FuckyWucky [none/use name]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Neoliberal austerity would prevent anything like this from happening on a large scale. You can see this with all the concerns about “cost”.

    The “budget” on these things should be ‘infinite’. Spend whatever amount of labor and resources available to build the plant. Instead they focus on short term profits.

    No wonder why China is spending more on renewable energy than rest of the world combined. Because China understands money isn’t real, they are more than willing to give as much as possible for renewable energy.

    • Deceptichum@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      Nuclear is not renewable energy.

      It’s not even green energy.

      Renewables are the superior choice in price and effect.

      • HeartyBeast@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        6 months ago

        It’s not a zero-sum game and we are in a climate emergency.

        As I type this, wind is only making up 13% of grid demand, down from well over 50% last week - which means that gas generation is sitting at over 62% http://gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

        Nuclear is a reasonable lower carbon way of serving base-load when wind/solar aren’t delivering . I just wish, as with all things climate-related, we had committed to this 30 years ago.

        • Deceptichum@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          And renewables are quicker, cheaper, and lower footprint.

          Its a no brainer. People need to let go of ‘50s nuclear romanticism.

          • HeartyBeast@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            And once again - it’s not a zero-game and we are in a climate emergency. Nuclear is a useful adjunct to renewables and some people need to let go of their 1970s nuclear doomerism.

            • Deceptichum@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              6 months ago

              But we don’t, there is zero benefit to building nuclear today over renewables.

              And it’s not doom, it’s common sense. Renewables are better long term and quicker and cheaper to setup today, why take the worse option during an emergency?

              • HeartyBeast@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                6 months ago

                But we don’t, there is zero benefit to building nuclear today over renewables.

                What are your practical proposals for generating 25 Gigawatts over a sustained period on a day like today when there is not much wind and negligable solar generation?

      • Naich@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        There needs to be a mix of sources, and unfortunately nuclear is the best way to provide a reliable source that can be ramped up or down instantly to plug gaps in supply from renewables.