• fsxylo@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 month ago

    Stopping nuclear from being built is the problem.

    We would have had a lot more clean energy than we do by now if we let the nuclear power plants that “would take too long to build!” be built back then, because they’d be up and running by now.

    More letting perfect be the enemy of good.

    • drake@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      1 month ago

      Nuclear may have been good 10 years ago, but it isn’t really good anymore. This is like saying “if I had bought a PS2 in 2002 then I would have had fun playing Final Fantasy XI Online. Therefore, I should buy a PS2 and FFXI Online so I can have fun in 2024”. That ship has sailed

        • drake@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 month ago

          and we can have 100% clean, renewable energy in 2024, we just don’t need the nuclear reactor

          • areyouevenreal@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            Nuclear actually releases less CO2 than renewables, because renewables aren’t nearly as clean as you think they are. Those solar panels and wind turbines have to be made somehow. The things needed to make solar panels and batteries aren’t exactly great for the planet to mine and manufacture.

            This concept of 100% clean energy is a myth, there are just more and less polluting sources. Nuclear being the least polluting, with fossil fuels being the worst, and renewables in the middle.