• gmtom@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s really not even AN answer. It’s so expensive to build them, requires hoards of highly specialised people to build and operate, takes decades to build all the while were relying on fossil fuels still until it can generate power, has a bigger carbon impact than renewables due to massive amounts of concrete used in building decommission and waste storage, is more expensive per mw, and while on average safer than most types of power plant, if something unexpected happens shit goes extremely bad.

    It just has way way way too many downsides compared to wind or solar or basically any other renewable to the point its just not really worth pursuing.

    • Lynthe@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I mean given that new nuclear plants haven’t been made in quite some time it’s too be expected that the average cost rises as costs for maintaining older plants also rises as they reach the end of their projected life cycle. In a few years when solar arrays have risen maintenance costs it won’t change the fact that it’s an essential power source, so the same logic should be applied to all clean energy.

      With approaches to reducing emissions we should take a “yes and” approach. Yes nuclear is a way to reduce emissions and we need to invest in solar wind and hydro. This is true regardless of what we put at the front of that sentence!

      • cheesebag@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        With approaches to reducing emissions we should take a “yes and” approach.

        UGH, YES, THANK YOU! Perfect should not be the enemy of good.