• veloxy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    59
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Imo, renewable should still be the target, nuclear should be the bridge towards renewable until it’s feasible enough

    • schroedingershat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      28
      ·
      1 year ago

      Building a stop-gap that will be ready 20 years after you get to the main destination for 10x the price isn’t a bright move.

      • intelati@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I disagree… the biggest “issue” I have with “renewables” is the storage problem… That 20 years gives you time to figure out something while reducing the carbon output

        • oyo@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Battery storage is already cheaper than nuclear.

        • schroedingershat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          …no it won’t because the new nuclear will generate nothing for 20 years. Whereas the renewables will reduce some carbon, even if we pretend that storage is both unsolvable (as opposed to already cheaper than nuclear) and necessary in a grid that’s already 40% hydro.