• Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

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

        • Claidheamh@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s the exact argument people have been making for 60 years, and look where we are now. Around 80% of the world’s energy is still from fossil fuels. Do you want to continue making the same mistakes as the previous generations?

    • Xavienth@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      You cannot run the entire grid on entirely renewable. We physically don’t have enough lithium in the world to make the batteries for it, and even if you don’t use lithium there would be untold ecological destruction to extract the rare earths.

      Renewable and hydroelectric is a solution but not viable everywhere and hydro also causes massive ecological destruction

      • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        If we started building nuclear powerplants right now it would take 10-20 years before they’re even online. That’s 10-20 years worth of technology improvements that could make it obsolete, especially if we don’t pin our hopes on nuclear baseload and start building a grid that can be 100% renewable.

        And that’s not even mentioning the truly massive budget overruns. Or the environmental impact of mining and refining fuel.

        • Xavienth@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          And you would be running 10-20 years of gas and coal power plants in addition to the renewables if you’re not in a suitable area for hydro because suitable grid scale energy storage solutions literally don’t exist. Maybe they will in 10-20 years, but would you bet on a maybe or go with nuclear which we know will work as a baseload?