• assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The best time to build them was decades ago, so clearly the second best time is to… Never? Your argument is taken straight from the oil and coal industries – it would take too long to build up renewables infrastructure, so let’s just not do it? We shouldn’t build windmills, because you can’t tell me how many we need globally?

    You’re grasping at straws. If you care about climate change, and you trust in science, there’s only one valid viewpoint on nuclear energy. I welcome dissenting opinions however and would be more than happy to hear why you disagree. Just know that I took courses in college on nuclear reactors and their design as part of my degree, as well as environment engineering, and I currently work in the green energy field – by no means am I automatically correct, but I want to see an argument that’s based in science and recent scientific studies and analysis, let’s say anything past 2015.

    • VeganPizza69 Ⓥ@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The best time to build them was decades ago, so clearly the second best time is to… Never? Your argument is taken straight from the oil and coal industries – it would take too long to build up renewables infrastructure, so let’s just not do it? We shouldn’t build windmills, because you can’t tell me how many we need globally?

      You seem to be unaware of the plans and needs to reduce GHGs. We do not have decades to waste.

      • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’re right, and that’s why it would be foolish to build exclusively nuclear. It’s also foolish however to not build any nuclear. The long lead time means we need to start ASAP so it’s ready ASAP. With proper government action targeting bottlenecks in the process (I believe there’s only one manufacturer in the world for a certain type of reactor shielding) we can speed that up.

        Diversification is the way to go. At the very least, we should build enough reactors and breeder reactors to consume existing nuclear waste and drive that to effectively 0.

        On top of all that, the bottleneck for deploying solar and wind en masse isn’t actually solar and wind facilities (although we certainly need those) but our electric grid. It needs an upgrade in order to integrate alternative energies, and I believe estimates on doing that are ~10 years. We might end up in a situation where a nuclear reactor is actually faster to build, depending on the type.

    • rusticus@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I could not disagree more. Renewables are cheaper safer easier to deploy and secure the grid. Nuclear is dead.

      • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Nuclear is the safest energy. It has the fewest deaths per kWh produced. Some modern reactors are able to consume nuclear waste to generate fuel as well. If you want to minimize nuclear waste, we need to build at least some reactors to shove existing waste into.

        • rusticus@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Nuclear keeps our already unsafe grid more unsafe. It’s too expensive and accidents, while rare, are disastrous. Nuclear is dead.