Renewables are best for sure. I guess if the required logistics are not in place to get them online faster, I guess waiting for fusion is better.
I would have thought it could be done faster. Thanks for the info!
Comment on Can somebody please explain why the world hasn't gone nuclear yet?
poVoq@slrpnk.net 4 days agoIt’s the opposite, convincing governments to invest in totally uneconomic nuclear reactors that will take 15-20 years to build, ensures that these countries will continue to depend on fossile fuels for the next 15-20 years.
Angelusz@lemmy.world 4 days ago
MotoAsh@lemmy.world 3 days ago
They do not take that long to build. At all. Besifes, most of the build time is because of red tape, like requiring a plant to be FULLY DESIGNED, reviewed, and approved by multiple bodies before they can even break ground on one in the US.
It is red tape and fear mongering, not an actual feature of nuclear power itself.
poVoq@slrpnk.net 3 days ago
Its the current reality in both the US and Europe. And looking at the various serious construction defects that are surfacing in French reactors that were build at a time when the government waived much of the red tape, these extra precautions save a lot of costs over the life time of the reactor.
MotoAsh@lemmy.world 3 days ago
No you’re just ignorantly wrong. New plants, even ones built around the same time as Chornobyl, are LITERALLY INCAPABLE of breaking in the same ways. This entire discussion is filled with ignorant people speaking confidantly.
poVoq@slrpnk.net 3 days ago
No one talked about Chernobyl like disasters, please don’t argue silly strawmans.
A large part of the French plants had to be recently shut down for very expensive repairs, because their containments developed serious cracks due to shoddy construction.
I am not generally against nuclear reactors, and the ones already running should be kept online for the time being, but building new ones is complete economic nonsense and way better alternatives exist.