this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2024
1 points (66.7% liked)

Memes

56311 readers
752 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 4 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 1 points 2 years ago

Safe, sure. Efficient? Not even close.

It's far, far more expensive than renewable energy. It also takes far, far longer to build a plant. Too long to meet 2030 targets even if you started building today. And in most western democracies you wouldn't even be able to get anything done by 2040 if you also add in political processes, consultation, and design of the plant.

There's a reason the current biggest proponents of nuclear energy are people and parties who previously were open climate change deniers. Deciding to go to nuclear will give fossil fuel companies maximum time to keep doing their thing. Companies which made their existence on the back of fossil fuels, like mining companies and plant operators also love it, because it doesn't require much of a change from their current business model.

[–] someacnt_@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

I expect debates, hm Interesting this got this much upvotes

But also why no one talked about land usage

[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The USA specifically has so much useless land with minimal ecological value, that if an energy project could actually be done at a federal level we could probably not have to worry about it.

There is a whole bunch of land in central USA that is not especially unique or teaming with life, slap down a big renewable energy farm.

[–] RudeDuner@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago

Spoken like someone who doesn’t know shit about ecology