Yes pouring down money on a technology, that at best can help us mitigate emissions in 20 years, instead of investing it in a scaleable and cheaper technology now (wind, solar) is a great and reasonable strategy...

And that is entirely ignoring the debate abou the safety and waste issue of nuclear power.

[–] EddoWagt@feddit.nl 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

It's always too late, might as well not try

[–] matlag@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago

By the time countries that could have built nuclear power plants would complete them, they will have collectively burnt enough coal and gas to doom humankind.

So: indeed, the world leaders didn't try seriously.

[–] Sh3Rm4n@feddit.de 2 points 1 year ago

You could also channel the effort into renewable energy and the the reward would be greater and faster achieved.

[–] Ooops@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

Yes, that is exactly the nuclear motto: It's to late to match any climate goal with nuclear power not already starting counstruction many years ago... so let's say "fuck climate goals and stop trying" and build nuclear anyway, because it's really cool and in 20-30 years it might solve our 10 year problem of remaining co2 budgets.

[–] _s10e@feddit.de 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Scholz is right that nuclear is dead in German. Nuclear is always political and there's no stable political majority pro nuclear. This has nothing to do with the technology. It just won't happen.

Most entreprises, energy or else, are privately run and financed. Capitalism. Nuclear is private on paper, but no one is going to build reactors without governent support. Many industries are regulated, like banking, but they are still driven by profit motives, private interest. At least in Germany, there's no entrepreneurial mindset behind nuclear. Rent seeking business people and lobbyists, sure. But not risk takers. The businesses lobbying pro nuclear are lead by ex-politicians and similar types who secretly want a safe government job.

Nuclear is dead and it's not the biggest problem. The much bigger elephant in the room is that we mostly talk about renewables. Sure, renewals grow, but nowhere near the rate needed. Everyone can see this, the data is available, and we just don't give a shit.

And don't get me started on hydrogen. Doesn't make sense to even consider hydrogen unless you have a huge surplus on (preferably renewable) energy.

[–] theKalash@feddit.ch -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is right now.

[–] UnfortunateShort@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It is too late. You'd have to rebuild an entire industry. There is no trained personnel for this, no suplly chains, no plans or up-to-date regulations, nothing. It will cost billions over billions and take at least decade before you even have your first new powerplants.

You can install many times their capacity in renewables for cheaper and without the riscs and dependencies attached in that time span. That's a fact and you can hate it and would be right, but that doesn't change it. Nuclear is over for Germany and the cries to reinstate it are nothing but populism.

[–] Aux@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

That's a bad take. Germany is saying it's too late for decades. If not for people like you, they would already have nuclear up and running.

[–] lntl@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago

China has a supply chain for nuclear. it's doable.

(China and nuclear in the same comment, here they come)