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
      ·
      1 year 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
      ·
      1 year 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
          1 year 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
            ·
            1 year 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.