• Rakonat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    7 months ago

    I haven’t the slightest idea what you’re talking about. Nuclear displaces fossil fuels at a better rate than renewables and is just as low carbon impact as them. We could replace the entire fossil grid with nuclear in 10 years if there was public support and demand for it, but fossil giants have been parroting the same antinuclear myths and fears dor the last 70 years and its so widely spread even pro renewable people have been deluded into thinking nuclear is bad for the planet when it might very well be our last best hope of fixing greenhouse emissions without the entire world reverting to pre industrial lifestyles.

    • Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      7 months ago

      I think nuclear and fossil fuel people all the same people. Its all energy investors. Nuclear would come with a lifetime storage contract with the ability to continually jack up the public cost indefinitely as the requirements change. Seems like an industry that would appeal to the fossils fuel types.

    • cooopsspace@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      7 months ago

      Nope, we will be burning the fossil fuels the whole time the nuclear plant is being built.

      That’s why fossil fuel giants and right wingers are banking on nuclear, because it’ll be a free pass to burn burn burn.

      • Rakonat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        7 months ago

        Nuclear plants wouldn’t take so long to build if people stopped trying to sue and protest their construction and sabotage it with all the red tape. If permits were approved and certified tomorrow a new plant could be operational in 10 years. 5 if it was actually funded and supported. Building the plant is easy, its cuttinf through the red tape encouraged by the oil lobby that is takes decades