4 ms·
Yeah building nuclear plants should be priority one. There is no replacement for the quality(variability) and quantity of power produced by them. It's obviously
by o_1 4y ago
Yeah building nuclear plants should be priority one. There is no replacement for the quality(variability) and quantity of power produced by them. It's obviously political, there's no money in building nuke plants for the current ruling class, only in "renewables".
- fundatus 4y agoNuclear is an energy source of the past. It's too expensive and therefore rejected by the markets. Modern, emmission-free energy-sources like solar or wind (accompanied by storage in homes, districts and some larger-scale storage facilities) became so cheap in the past decade that you can now build more than 10 times the capacity in renewables for the price of a nuclear reactor. It's simple economics why nuclear is dying a slow death.
- wolfram74 4y agoThe price argument feels like a very lazy one to me since regulatory environment plays such a large role.
- daxelrod 4y agoPerhaps I misunderstood your point, but building nuclear plants can't be priority one because we don't have time to wait around for them to be built. We should be building them in parallel with more immediate initiatives that can buy us time.