this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023
1144 points (95.0% liked)

World News

39104 readers
3271 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] flipht@kbin.social 30 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago

That's your opinion. I think funding nuclear is just burning money and wasting time we don't have.