• stickly@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 days ago

    IMO, any energy plan needs to have reduced consumption as priorities 1-10 and past that nuclear isn’t always worse than renewables.

    Let’s bring back lead, CFCs and all the stuff we have band because we were careful

    Lead, CFCs, Asbestos and the like have all been banned for consumer use, but that’s not what we’re talking about here. Being unhealthy doesn’t mean they have no application and can’t be carefully used.

    still has no real waste solution

    At scale, neither do renewables. Solar panels are a sandwich of dozens of trace elements, heavy metals, plastic and everything else. Nitpicking nuclear here is silly because the amount of waste generated is the least by an order of magnitude. Keep waste generation under control and its management basically an afterthought.

    Nucular is extremely expensive

    These conversations always get bogged down in $/kW, which is not what we should be worried about. Nuclear has a lower lifetime carbon footprint than renewables, which is worth the extra spend in our current climate crisis. It’s an important tool for sustainable energy usage; you can’t use renewables as a drop in replacement for everything.

    • PlzGivHugs@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 days ago

      Do you have a source for that graph? I’m interested in the study, but couldn’t find it with a web search.