this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2023
569 points (97.7% liked)

World News

32286 readers
722 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

yeah sure, nuclear powerplants finished in the late 40th are gonna solve our current problems (if that's the approach you are talking about)

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

Sure as fuck better than setting targets you know you're not going to hit and then acting all shocked when you don't

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago

The targets got missed by construction (some small part) and transport (mainly)... and again like clockwork the brain-washed nuclear brigade storms in lying about electricity production.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Is it though? You'd need to cut the price of nuclear by about 1/4. Even then, renewables are faster at decarbonisation. Not that nuclear represented a large amount of the German grid in the first place. Best case scenario for Germany, is extending the lifespan of their plants not more than a few years.

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

Sitting here and complaining about how long it'll take once we start, and as such never actually starting, is exactly how we got here.

Best time was 40 years ago, second best time is now.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's actually the worst time to get started on nuclear. Costs keep going up. There's a reason why countries overwhelmingly prefer to invest in renewables over nuclear. This includes nuclear companies. EDF is one of the largest investors in renewables, and it's actually the profitable side of the business. It's going to be the taxpayer that's going to pay for nuclear, and they're not going to get their money's worth, as opposed to renewables.