• Femcowboy@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    If we had an energy system owned by the people and not ran for profits, nuclear would be a viable, and probably even the preferred, option. We do not. We’re probably going to have to fix that to get a practical and reliable clean energy grid.

    • wewbull@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      No, it would just bankrupt the state. Just because something is state owned, doesn’t mean the cost vanishes.

      • prole@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Infrastructure in this country is already so heavily subsidized by the federal government (and state, if you live somewhere that actually cares about your well-being) that we’re already pretty much paying for it all.

        • BedbugCutlefish@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          You are, of course, correct.

          But even so, costs are costs. It doesn’t matter if you’ve achieved communism, and are in a moneyless, stateless existance, you need labor and materials to build nuclear, and labor and materials to maintain it (along with other infrastructure).

          And, I’m not anti-nuclear; it does make sense to use sometimes, in some amounts. Its just very very costly for what it provides.

          But frankly, even only accounting for current tech, wide spread nuclear just doesn’t make that much sense compared to renewables + storage and large grids interconnects.

    • Jagermo@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      What do you do with the waste in that scenario? Who pays for that? Or for insurance?