Post #3162939
2023-09-02 09:56 UTC
Replies (2)
-
@jackofalltrades@mas.to 2023-09-02 10:23
@MisuseCase@twit.social @Benaresh@mastodon.social Yeah, it is a weird argument. It's like saying that supporters of hydroelectric dams want to undercut wind and solar. Just like nuclear, dams are a source of low-carbon electricity and take years to build. It's a false dichotomy. Just take a look at China, continuously deploying new solar, wind _and_ nuclear (not to mention coal 😢) power plants. This comment reminded me of this comic: https://c.im/@deonandan/110219931041880521
-
@Benaresh@mastodon.social 2023-09-02 12:15
@MisuseCase@twit.social @jackofalltrades@mas.to Sorry if that sounded rude but thats what nuclear ends up doing. It soaks up investment in renewables. Nuscale SMR: "The milestone is the direct result of more than $400 million in funding by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) since 2014 to accelerate the development and deployment of SMRs." A Reactor that still is over budget and behind schedule. Nuclear isnt underfunded. It got Billions over half a century with nary anything to show for it.