Given the high cost and long lead times involved, I’m incredibly dubious about this one actually happening.

      • dumdum666@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        It is an ideological thing with some people - it doesn’t matter what makes sense economically. You can find a comment on the same level as this one where someone is talking about lacking energy density. I value my time too high to start arguing against something I know is a bad faith argument and nothing will come of it.

      • RGB3x3@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        11 months ago

        Because nuclear has WAY more power generation than other renewables.

        Solar, wind, geothermal, and hydro won’t be able to keep up with electricity demand if we want to eliminate fossil fuels. The power density of nuclear just can’t be matched.

          • RGB3x3@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            You misunderstood what I’m saying. I’m not talking about what is powering things, I’m talking about what we need in order to power an all-electric future.

            Nuclear has a much higher power capacity for generation than solar and wind.

            If we want to replace the coal, natural gas, and oil in that graph, we’re going to need nuclear.

            • Hugohase@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              What we need now, to not transform earth into a postapocalyptic wasteland, are renewables. What type of electricity we use after that I don’t care about.

  • umbrella@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    11 months ago

    they have been pledging a lot of stuff for the last 30 or more years.

    ill believe anything when i see it heppening.

  • Xenxs@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    We have seen your previous pledges, we all know these are hollow promises.

  • Sonori@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    11 months ago

    It’s worth noting that the high cost and long lead times are mostly just a US thing, many nations can go from inception to fully complete in three to five years. There also isn’t much overlap with the resources needed for cheaper solar and wind. I’m just glad that it’s not more natural gas “bridge” plants.

    • b9chomps@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      It’s worth noting that the high cost and long lead times are mostly just a US thing, many nations can go from inception to fully complete in three to five years.

      I was curious about this claim and checked out the IAEA website and just checked random cointries and found several reactors that have been under construction for way longer.

      I have never heard of a power plant or new reactor of an existing plant being build in that time frame. Do you have examples?

  • Draedron@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    11 months ago

    How short sighted. In a couple decades the same countries will try to find ways to unpollute their ground and water from the radiation leaking from all the wastw they produce

    • luciole (he/him)@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      11 months ago

      Nuclear is far from perfect, but countries have been exploiting it successfully and safely. France has been using it for 50 years, 70% of their households’ energy comes from it and it didn’t turn the country into a toxic wasteland.