• Churbleyimyam@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    4 months ago

    The only thing nuclear has going for it at the moment is jobs for the boys. Have a look at Hinkley C in the UK. It’s certainly not for cheap or clean energy.

    • conditional_soup@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      4 months ago

      It’s not carbon. That’s the biggest thing right now; first and foremost, we need to stop carbon emissions. Nuclear is one pathway there, and there’s no reason it can’t be complimentary to renewables.

      • Churbleyimyam@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        4 months ago

        I agree with you about carbon but nuclear has ended up being one of the most expensive alternatives.

        • SoleInvictus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          You’re right, it’s yet another stop-gap measure keeping us from making ideal, long-term solutions. If we were an intelligent species, we’d have been hellbent on implementing renewable energy solutions and putting massive, massive amounts of research into fusion. Instead, we’re where we are now. What a time to be alive.

      • DerGottesknecht@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Nuclear is one pathway there, and there’s no reason it can’t be complimentary to renewables.

        The reason is limited resources. Whatever we invest into nuclear can’t be invested in renewables.