• Deceptichum@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Mate?

    Nuclear takes forever to build, we could pump out a million storage solutions before enough nuclear was built.

    Nuclear is the complete opposite of a middle ground.

    • Lumilias@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      China built 37 of them in the last 10 years according to the article. It doesn’t take forever, it just takes foresight and planning, which most of the Western world lacks beyond the next quarter profits lol.

      The baseline capacity nuclear provides can get evolving countries like China out of the fossil fuel phase, which is critically important. I don’t know what your problem is with nuclear, it’s been a relatively safe and stable form of energy generation that’s far better than any fossil fuel.

      Edit: and I just read the top comment in the thread that they’re building a fuckton of coal plants too. Damn it.

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

      Nuclear is 100% the future. It provides the highest energy density (i.e. it produces the most kwh/square mile), and is also the safest and most environmentally friendly form of power generation we have right now. The downside is the amount of time it takes to bring reactors online. Make no mistake, the time cost is a feature, not a bug. There are phenomenally stringent requirements and QC checks that must be met in order to ensure public and environmental safety. However, this also means that nuclear is not the solution right now. What we should be doing is constructing wind, solar, tidal, etc. plants to transition away from fossil fuels in the immediate future, while simultaneously beginning construction on nuclear plants, so we can eventually transition to those.