Comment on Nuclear energy remains weapon of choice for climate deniers and coal lobby
drewdarko@kbin.social 1 year ago
Because it takes 15 years to get a nuclear plant up and running. Which is plenty of time to sabotage the project so we end up stuck having to use fossil fuels.
Not to mention we would have to burn fossil fuels the whole 15 years we wait for that one nuclear plant.
PopOfAfrica@lemmy.world 1 year ago
We realistically needed a mix of nuclear and renewables starting decades who.
zurohki@aussie.zone 1 year ago
Building nuclear in the 80s or 90s might have been a good idea, but a nuclear plant that gets started today in Australia is going to be up and running in 2038, and there’s no way it could compete with 2038’s solar and battery technology.
If you have nuclear plants, sure, keep running them. But it doesn’t make sense to build new ones any more.
Nonameuser678@aussie.zone 1 year ago
It could end up being a situation where wind and solar are needed for the transition to nuclear fusion. Nuclear fission at this point is not worth the cost it would take to set up. And by the time we set it up in Australia, the rest of the world is transitioning to fusion.
zurohki@aussie.zone 1 year ago
Is nuclear fusion going to be cheaper than fission, though? Once we’re on solar and batteries, I can’t see us needing to move off of them onto something else. And I can’t see anything beating solar+battery on price.