this post was submitted on 29 Jun 2024
107 points (97.3% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5281 readers
675 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There are just better/faster options...
We have way more resources and production available today to achieve an absolute amount of TWh. If anything, being able to acheive the same growth with Nuclear in the 70s and 80s is a much larger achievement when considering how much larger a portion of the total supply it represented.
I don't agree with you but either way that doesn't change the fact that nuclear is just slow, expensive and a bad idea in 2024.
How is nuclear a bad idea? It's one of the best options. Sure it's slow and expensive, but once it's up and running, it's safe, and even less radioactive than coal.
Because solar and wind can be deployed much faster. You rather easily have a decade of extra coal or gas emissions, if you built nuclear today.
Two things can be built at once.
Sure, but why would you built a nuclear power plant, when you are faster in having a clean grid with wind and solar. The workers building the npp could built more wind and solar after all.
So just do both at the same time.
Can be, won't be tho
No. The total amount of money available for energy research and construction is a given amount. If it's better spent on solar and wind that's it.