Boycott US

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 3 points 4 months ago

Well, nuclear is good.

As long as it is properly operated and well regulated.

Under the current US regime, I can't trust that to be the case.

parent

[–] zeppo@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago

I mean, Tennessee.

[–] A_be_seedy@beehaw.org 2 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Nuclear is good. And gas is better than coal.

In Ohio, all of the Co-ops are running on 100% coal bay-bee! This is despite being owned by the customers.

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz [S] 2 points 4 months ago (1 child)

None of the things you just listed are practical, efficient, sustainable or realistic compared to alternative energy.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] A_be_seedy@beehaw.org 1 point 4 months ago

None of my comment was inaccurate.

It did demonstrate that TVA was doing better on energy generation than co-ops - which is an area where green energy should in theory be easier to attain.

Your comment seems to imply that I pulled those 3 generation sources out of my ass and claimed they're the best. I actually just read the headline.

You claimed that nuclear was not practical, efficient, sustainable, or realistic in comparison to alternate energy sources. This is not an accurate claim.

parent

[–] fyzzlefry@retrolemmy.com 1 point 4 months ago

Yay nuclear!

1 comment in c/climate@slrpnk.net view that post

[+] bacon_pdp@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago (1 child)

[deleted]

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] mrlockthorne@slrpnk.net 0 points 4 months ago

somebody better tell Oklo then. they're spending almost 2B to build one in Oak Ridge lol. also, that 97% comes with a LOT of caveats. regardless, nuclear is such a great base load for the US, and we need to focus on grid supplementation to ease base load operations, anyway.