234
What should be done and over with by now? (piefed.social)
submitted 8 months ago by to c/asklemmy@lemmy.world
192 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 15 points 8 months ago (1 child)

You're right, but probably being downvoted because the wording you've used is the same as that used by conservatives to reject renewables all together.

Nuclear is not "the" solution, but it's part of the energy mix of the future, particularly as we transition away from petrol and diesel transport, and gas cooking and heating.

In some cases it just doesn't make sense. Australia for example has never had a nuclear industry and doesn't have the requisite population density. It would take thirty years to build a nuclear plant and in that time we could build the same capacity with solar and wind.

However, if you already have a nuclear industry and do have large dense population centres then it's a great alternative to coal.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago

    Ah, that explains the weird response I got about lemmy.zip being fascist, thank you for explaining it!

    You are absolutely right, nuclear is not the solution, it is an interim solution giving us 100-200 years of remarkably clean energy, if we designed a standard reactor that could be built inside existing fossil power plants, I think we could cut down on the build time by 80%, though that requires that we have approved designs.

    I also believe that we in Sweden/Scandinavia should build large underground nuclear waste disposal sites, and offer to take care of nuclear waste from around the world, we have stable bedrock, our politics have been stable for decades. If would be a nice income stream while solving the issue for other countries. It has to be done, and we are well suited for it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent