I'm increasingly of the same opinion, however, I dislike the fact that even talking about nuclear as a potential bridge technology is such a polarizing issue.

I am very far from being an expert on the subject and accordingly don't have a strong opinion either way as to what role, if any, it can usefully play in transitioning to sustainable energy models.

What I don't like is the immediate labeling of either side of the issue as somehow automatically being indicative of bad faith or "shilling" on behalf of a larger, nearly conspiratorial interest.

[–] jcit878@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

its not that nuclear is bad, but it's very expensive and takes a long time to commission, where the bridge between now and full scale renewable is on a shorter time frame. if the idea of using nuclear as a transition was made 10-20 years ago, absolutely. now, it's kinda too late.

so pretty much the most economical solution is to go all in on renewable from now on

[–] BigNote@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Thanks for the response. That makes sense and I think I'm probably on-board.

[–] ikidd@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Solar and wind have location, storage and reliability issues. Nuclear completely takes the place of fossil fuel generation on all those fronts.