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.
Soup@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Yea, better burn the world down instead.
cows_are_underrated@feddit.org 8 months 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.
Soup@lemmy.world 8 months ago
I’m mostly commenting on the fact that people are so concerned with the cost of nuclear plants yet they seem to not care about the cost of the damage that rampant fossil fuel production comes with. This has been the shitty argument for long before renewables became viable and nuclear would have been a much better stepping stone. There are also always going to be places where renewable energy won’t work or be enough.
It’s never going to be a single solution problem.
cows_are_underrated@feddit.org 8 months ago
Ok, fair enough. I also absolutely agree that we shaould have went for nuclear instead of coal, but now its to late and its faster to replace coal with renewables, than replacing it with nuclear.