If you're interested in energy solutions and haven't read the RethinkX report on the feasibility of a 100% solar, wind and battery solution, it's definitely worth taking a look.

Whilst I agree that we need to decarbonise asap with whatever we can, any new nuclear that begins planning today is likely to be a stranded asset by the time it finishes construction. That money could be better spent leaning into a renewable solution in my view.

[–] DivineDev@kbin.run 23 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Exactly this. I am "in favor" of nuclear energy, but only in the sense that I'd like fossil power to be phased out first, then nuclear. Any money that could be spent on new nuclear power plants is better spent on solar and wind.

[–] I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

I'd like Nuclear power not to be thrown out with the bathwater because it is practically essential for space travel/colonization in the long term. Solar panels can only get us so far, and batteries are a stop-gap. We need nuclear power because it is the only energy source that can meet our needs while being small enough to carry with us.

All should praise the magic, hot rocks.

[–] saigot@lemmy.ca 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

it is practically essential for space travel/colonization in the long term.

Seems like it's pretty important we not burn through our finite reserves of it if we can help it. I'm not saying we should reach zero nuclear, but I don't think we should be relying on it too much either.

[–] I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

We are no where near close to running out of nuclear material. And for its energy density, we are unlikely to run out anytime in the next 10000 years. It can also be found in asteroids or other rocky bodies, so unlike wood or fossil fuels, Earth isn't the only place to get it.

load more comments (9 replies)