I didn’t mention nuclear
Except that nuclear is not economically viable.
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 1 week ago
cows_are_underrated@feddit.org 1 week ago
You didnt but the person you replied to
0x0@lemmy.zip 1 week ago
Give it the same subsidies Big Oil has then… and i’d rather have clean energy that “economically viable” dirty energy.
Tja@programming.dev 1 week ago
Huh? France seems to be doing OK.
cows_are_underrated@feddit.org 1 week ago
I should mention, that building new nuclear reactors is not financially a viable option.
Szyler@lemmy.world 1 week ago
It is if you consider the cost of the redundancy required for renewable energy to serve as base load one you cut oil, gass and coal out of the supply.
Nuclear can cover this base load until we develop better storage systems for large scale use.
If we had just built nuclear with the modern architecture developed in the 70’s onwards we’d be able to move away from fossile fuel FAAR more easily today, without any mjor disasters from the reactor technology from the 50’s.
AA5B@lemmy.world 1 week ago
If we had just moved ahead with solar heat and hot water, or even solar panels, back when It resident ,Carter was trying to encourage it, we would already be moved away from fossil fuels
Soup@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Yea, better burn the world down instead.
cows_are_underrated@feddit.org 1 week ago
You know that renewable Energy exists? In the time we would need to replace follils with nuclear we can insted build renewables and Storage capacitys and we would be way cheaper.
Tja@programming.dev 1 week ago
A single one maybe not, if we standardize and scale it might work. If solar and batteries keep getting cheaper, it might not be worth it, but the current problem is that new reactors are their own unique snowflakes, making it more expensive.