• EatPotatoes [none/use name]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    That doesn’t really matter by the time thousands of either are built in 10-20 years time and have to be shutdown because there isn’t enough cool water for the steam turbines.

    Emissions need to be reduced now. 2024. Life as we live it is completely and utterly incompatible with where need to be to. We need to stop pretending there is some techno fix to change that.

    • Dolores [love/loves]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      6 months ago

      they shut down already built and generating plants, that’s not some academic opinion on the viability of nuclear, it directly increased emissions because the greens irrationally hate the technology

      • EatPotatoes [none/use name]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        I understand how that’s looks really shit but in the grand scheme of things the demand for fossil fuels still eclipsed the effect of the nuclear plants, still would and likely still will. Look at China’s development of nuclear energy and see how little it really adds up to replacing coal and gas there.

    • DefinitelyNotAPhone [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 months ago

      Even extreme degrowth still requires enormous power production across the entire planet, and while renewables are getting much better they still struggle with handling base loads at scale. If you’re looking to power a city just about anywhere not on a massive fault line, there aren’t many options better than fission.