this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2024
633 points (99.2% liked)

Technology

58303 readers
10 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago

It just seems like it is to the layman.

Ought from an is. Basic fallacy.

Building a nuclear plant takes ten years minimum and it’s incredibly expensive, and has a lower margin for profit. In that amount of time governments/companies can build tens of thousands of renewable energy stations.

No. France built many in half that length of time. It does have a low profit margin because it is the only energy source that fully captures it's external costs. Your solar power is only possible because the cells are "recycled" in places where they don't give a fuck.

The issue of waste from solar is real, but the fact is even with that waste it’s done far more to reduce emissions than nuclear ever has or ever could.

I want a citation of that. And given that nuclear power is seven decades old very much good luck with that.