When do we get the next one?

  • pizzaiolo@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    21
    ·
    1 year ago

    I wonder how many emissions could we have avoided if that money was spent on renewables + batteries while we were waiting for this powerplant to come online

    • Claidheamh@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Renewables + batteries? You wouldn’t have saved any emissions. Construction of a nuclear plant doesn’t require as much carbon emissions as you think. And regardless, nuclear isn’t competing with renewables, anyway, it’s for replacing carbon-emitting power plants. Nuclear and renewables need to work hand-in-hand if we want to actually reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions.

      • pizzaiolo@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        Money is finite, and every decision creates an opportunity cost. In that sense, every energy generation technology competes with one another.

        • Claidheamh@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Sure, but we don’t talk about solar vs wind power, do we? They all have their place. It’s the same thing here. Renewables and nuclear each have a place in a zero carbon grid.

    • lntl@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Renewables and batteries are great tools, we need to be building these out. Nuclear can best complement renewables with a stable, emission free, base load capacity. Nuclear has its own challenges, but renewables can not replace enormous load that’s currently carried by coal and gas in the near or extended term.

      • pizzaiolo@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Nuclear power plants typically retire after 40 years. I wouldn’t be surprised if replacing all the renewables and batteries after 20 or 30 years would still be cheaper than this nuclear plant

        • AToM.exe@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          ދިވެހި
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Nuclear is the best solution we have at the moment until fusion reactors work.

    • AnarchoYeasty@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Wait until you learn about the horrific environmental impact of battery production. And the amount of slavery involved in their creation.

        • AnarchoYeasty@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Not great but uranium can be mined in first world nations unlike cobalt which is mined by slaves in the congo. Nuclear is long term better for the environment than cobalt mining for batteries.