• Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    I agree with this; I think the “universal” argument and subsequent infighting is propped up by the oil lobby to slow us down. I just think it’s important to highlight how efficient nuclear is. We should be using both good tools to solve this and part of that is knowing how good both are so they’re not unnecessarily ignored.

    • Jason2357@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      That argument holds for existing proven tech like large nuclear and solar, but convincing governments to invest in unproven and unlikly tech is a great way to prevent actual transition to occur at all. They sop up cash and give governments reasons to build nothing now, or eventually build expensive tiny demonstration systems that do not effect the overall fossil fuel market. That list would include things like small modular reactors, hydrogen power, fusion, etc.

      • Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        i am very divided over SMRs, but large traditional reactors have been proven many times over, and in any case investing in unproven tech (by any government but the US) is what led solar to be this good now in the first place

          • Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            not sure what that means. large traditional reactors are a lot more efficient, especially at scale, though more costly due to historical and current lack of subsidies.