Green - An environmentalist community

5315 readers

1 users here now

This is the place to discuss environmentalism, preservation, direct action and anything related to it!

RULES:

1- Remember the human

2- Link posts should come from a reputable source

3- All opinions are allowed but discussion must be in good faith

Related communities:

Unofficial Chat rooms:

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

165

Current Climate: A New Nuclear Reactor Goes Online In Georgia (www.forbes.com)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

99 comments fedilink hide all child comments

When do we get the next one?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Wind, solar, geothermal etc. need constant mining of fuel?

They need one-time mining of construction material to build those things, and that's it, for the next few decades.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

and that’s it

Point is that's just as big an "it" as the nuclear costs. Which, in a zero emissions world, is a very small "it". I'm not arguing against renewables, I'm arguing against fossil fuels. We need to replace all of it ASAP, and realistically nuclear is the easiest, most reliable way to reach that goal. Just compare Germany and France's emissions per capita, and then the distribution of their power source, and electricity costs.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

ASAP? Take a look at planning and construction times of nuclear plants. Like Hinkley Point C in the UK for instance. Announced in 2010, generation now postponed to 2026, years behind schedule and billions over budget. And that's on an already pre-existing nuclear site.

Cost? Estimated 100 GBP/MWh. The difference to market prices will probably be coughed up by the taxpayer.

Renewables are way faster to install, for a fraction of the cost.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

They should have started sooner and with more plants. But it's still much better for that nuclear plant be complete in 2030, than never. Delays and mismanagement aren't unique to nuclear, and no excuse to stop from building it.

Renewables are way faster to install, for a fraction of the cost.

So why are we still using fossil fuels then? The best time to start building alternatives is yesterday. Second best time is now.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So why are we still using fossil fuels then?

You already gave the answer: Because they should have started sooner.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

So that's all I'm saying. Let's do all in our power to get rid of carbon emissions ASAP. The fact that it takes time is no excuse not to start.