• RealFknNito@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s literally never too late to start them. It’s too late for them, alone, to reverse the damage to the climate change but make no mistake that until we’re dead and buried it’s not too late to make more. The KW/h per measurement of CO2 that nuclear plants produce is incomprehensible. It surpasses even renewable energy, that causes pollution from the broken panels and other e-waste. Fission has always been the answer and it needs to be pushed through no matter how fucking late it is so they can then be repurposed into fusion based when we make that advancement.

    • Yendor@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The life-cycle emissions from nuclear are better than PV, but it’s still not as good as wind or hydro. But the issue is that it’s massively front loaded - you have huge emissions during construction that are slowly undone over the decades of operation. But we can’t afford to ramp up emissions for the next 14+ years (both the emissions of building a nuclear plant, and the fact that the existing coal/gas plants will have to run for another 14 years). If you switch to renewables, you can reduce emissions this year, not in the 2050s.

      And there is absolutely no way you’re going to repurpose a fission plant into a fusion plant. They have basically nothing in common apart from the name.

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

        This might be true for large reactors but I don’t think it will hold true with small modular reactors. We need the stability of nuclear too, as power demands overall rise.

        Renewables should definitely be a priority still, but nuclear shouldn’t be kicked out of the conversation.