For this to actually happen, it’s going to require a major drop in the cost of nuclear power. To some extent, pushing nothing-but-nuclear has been a fossil fuel industry strategy because those high costs and long lead times mean that it’s not actually getting built.

  • CJOtheReal
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    10 months ago

    What a gigantic waste of money and time. Nuclear is not the future.

    • NattyNatty2x4@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Smart enough to understand global warming is a problem, just too stupid to understand nuclear is extremely important as a source for baseload power

        • NattyNatty2x4@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          How you planning on addressing the energy storage problem for renewables once fossil fuels are in low enough use that they can’t cover the gap, and the resulting, large hike in renewable prices once that storage is needed? Because current assessments don’t include those costs right now, since fossil fuels and nuclear currently cover it