• アイス@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    I disagree. Next to hydropower (which is limited by geography) it has been the champion of non-fossil electricity generation so far. Still, the fossil fuel lobby is a powerful foe.

    Simply put, we should invest in all non-fossil options, and where solar is geographically viable, it is great. In other places however, where peak electricity demand coincides with the coldest, darkest parts of the year dispatchable production is strictly necessary, which is where nuclear shines.

    • GarbadgeGoober@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Well but what to do with the waste?

      I think in general it is a good source for energy, but unless we find a solution other than storing it somewhere in the earth, we should not use it.

      • Undvik@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        You build breeder reactors or use any of the non-uranium designs that were ignored by countries because they didn’t have weapons grade byproducts.

        There are ways to deal with the waste, the problem is always politics/greed as it cuts into the profits. Same is true for other energy sources btw, with coal we happily shoot the waste into the atmosphere and pretend nothing’s wrong with that.

    • Drusas@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      Hydropower has terrible environmental consequences. Emissions aren’t all that matters in terms of the environment.

        • Drusas@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          I agree with your first sentence but not the rest. It’s not all about energy and emissions. I also want ecosystems and their species to survive and thrive.