• alvvayson@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Where is the “ok, climate change is serious enough that I may need to reconsider my opposition to nuclear energy”?

    Because Greenpeace is a bit missing on this scale.

    • knatsch@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      i still don’t get the nuclear lovers, like yeah it’s better than coal and oil but renewable are now cheaper and much faster to build. we don’t have decades to build new nuclear plants anymore.

      • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It comes down to battery tech. They’re betting that the battery tech we need for renewables won’t be here before we can build more nuclear.

        I think they’re wrong. I think batteries will catch up faster than enough nuclear could come online to be useful

      • gxgx55@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I am personally in favor of nuclear because I don’t think we have solved the problems with renewables yet, our power grids are not ready to support a 100% renewable system and as of right now, electricity grids require some stable energy. Hydro can technically fill that role but that’s restricted by geography, so in places where that is not an option, it’s a choice of fossil fuels versus nuclear. In that context, nuclear is the lesser evil by far.

        Unlike some of the other responses, I don’t think we can’t wait for energy storage solutions to be developed when we needed to be zero emissions, like, ten years ago. We need to use solutions that we know about RIGHT NOW, not years into the future.