this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023
2173 points (94.2% liked)

World News

39110 readers
2393 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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?

[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Considering nuclear plants consistently go tremendously over budget, budget that could be used on renewables, and how quickly renewables are improving, I would take that bet in a heartbeat.

For reference, here's a graph comparing the cost per megawatt hour over cost per installed capacity from 2010-2019. Solar is now 1/5th what it was 10 years ago, onshore wind is half, and offshore wind is down by 25%.

The cost of nuclear power in that time has increased by more than 50%.

I would much rather invest in something that's showing improvements in cost and technology than Cold War white elephants.