43 ms·
Ah yes, environmentalists have been running the world for the last few decades. Nuclear has never been financially viable and to the degree there has been “env
by adjejmxbdjdn 4mo ago
Ah yes, environmentalists have been running the world for the last few decades.
Nuclear has never been financially viable and to the degree there has been “environmental” opposition it’s been NIMBY opposition to either the siting of the reactors or the siting of the disposal.
But again, the primary reason no one is building nuclear is because it’s incredibly expensive.
- rayiner 4mo ago> Nuclear has never been financially viable We literally have a whole-ass G7 country that went 75% nuclear back in the 80s.
- BadBadJellyBean 4mo agoA country can do things that are not financially viable.
- onraglanroad 4mo agoBecause it was paid for by the taxpayer. Why are you suddenly in favour of socialist projects? Shouldn't you be saying they should be privately funded and lets see if they can make a profit selling their electricity?
- TimorousBestie 4mo agoWinning arguments on the internet is more important than ideological consistency.
- fc417fc802 4mo agoOr alternatively a reasonable person will accept the observation that sufficiently large problems with sufficiently bad consequences need to be socialized. However even then there is still going to be disagreement about where exactly to draw the line. That nuclear and climate change falls far to one side of it should not be a surprise.
- onraglanroad 4mo agoAsk rayiner if they observe that large problems need to be socialized.
- palata 4mo ago> Ah yes, environmentalists have been running the world for the last few decades. No need to run the world: in the last decades, some environmentalists have been lobbying against nuclear energy and in the end, the people in many countries have become opposed to it by fear of it. And that feared is fuelled (among others) by environmentalists for sure. > Nuclear has never been financially viable If it's about comparing energies financially (and many other dimensions actually), nothing gets remotely close to oil. But oil is limited and oil is destroying the world. Also not to forget: everything nowadays depends on globalisation and therefore oil. We like to compare renewables to oil, but we forget that they totally depend on oil at the moment. Without oil, we don't build much renewables anywhere. So an important question is: without oil, do we need nuclear energy or not? I believe we do. I believe we also need renewables, to be clear.