this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023
1581 points (94.0% liked)

World News

39099 readers
2427 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Olgratin_Magmatoe@startrek.website 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

It’s that they cost so damn much

The cost of continued fossil fuel use is far higher.

rarely profitable

Profit should not be the motivation of preventing our climate disaster from getting worse. If the private sector isn't able to handle it, then the government needs to do so itself.

And besides, the only reason fossil fuels are so competitive is because we are dumping billions of dollars in subsidies for them. Those subsidies should instead go towards things that aren't killing the planet.

[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Would it be better to dump billions into nuclear power plants that won't come online for a decade at least, or to dump billions into renewables that can be online and reducing emissions in under a year?

[–] Olgratin_Magmatoe@startrek.website 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We should worldwide be putting trillions into both. Renewables should be first priority, but not all locations have good solar, wind, and battery options.

[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's your opinion. I think funding nuclear is just burning money and wasting time we don't have.

[–] Claidheamh@slrpnk.net 0 points 1 year ago

That's the exact argument people have been making for 60 years, and look where we are now. Around 80% of the world's energy is still from fossil fuels. Do you want to continue making the same mistakes as the previous generations?

[–] Xavienth@lemmygrad.ml -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You cannot run the entire grid on entirely renewable. We physically don't have enough lithium in the world to make the batteries for it, and even if you don't use lithium there would be untold ecological destruction to extract the rare earths.

Renewable and hydroelectric is a solution but not viable everywhere and hydro also causes massive ecological destruction

[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If we started building nuclear powerplants right now it would take 10-20 years before they're even online. That's 10-20 years worth of technology improvements that could make it obsolete, especially if we don't pin our hopes on nuclear baseload and start building a grid that can be 100% renewable.

And that's not even mentioning the truly massive budget overruns. Or the environmental impact of mining and refining fuel.

[–] Xavienth@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And you would be running 10-20 years of gas and coal power plants in addition to the renewables if you're not in a suitable area for hydro because suitable grid scale energy storage solutions literally don't exist. Maybe they will in 10-20 years, but would you bet on a maybe or go with nuclear which we know will work as a baseload?

[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Considering nuclear plants consistently go tremendously over budget, budget that could be used on renewables, and how quickly renewables are improving, I would take that bet in a heartbeat.

For reference, here's a graph comparing the cost per megawatt hour over cost per installed capacity from 2010-2019. Solar is now 1/5th what it was 10 years ago, onshore wind is half, and offshore wind is down by 25%.

The cost of nuclear power in that time has increased by more than 50%.

I would much rather invest in something that's showing improvements in cost and technology than Cold War white elephants.