22 Countries Pledge to Triple Nuclear Capacity in Push to Cut Fossil Fuels - eviltoast

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.