When do we get the next one?

  • RGB3x3@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s much more reliable and consistent at generating power. It’s not dependent on the sun shining or wind blowing, so you can get the full capacity of generation at all times, making it a better investment for a government trying to support large populations. It also takes up way less land to set up and run.

    Though of course, it doesn’t have to be one or the other. Solar and wind can supplement nuclear really well.

    You can read more about it here: https://changeoracle.com/2022/07/20/nuclear-power-versus-renewable-energy/amp/

    • Klame@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Your last point is the most important one in my opinion. OP implied we have to chose between nuclear and solar/wind but it’s plain false.

      • PorkRollWobbly@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        And anyone who tells you otherwise probably has a profit incentive rather than an environmentalist one.

        • Klame@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I thought about it when typing it, but I carried the habit from reddit over to lemmy to consider someone beginning a chain of comments as OP.

          It’s definitely not the original meaning, but I saw it fairly common to use OP to refer to the author of an initial comment when responding to one of its child comment.