you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

It's better than coal and oil. People shit the bed because of 2 big events that happened to old reactor types which were susceptible to such errors.

Honestly, would you rather live in a world where nuclear and gas are used to transition or coal and oil? Wind and solar still can't power all of Europe 24/7. Solutions are being worked on, tested, and built, but in the meantime, I'll sleep better with coal and oil centrals being replaced by nuclear. They will use less space, provide more stable power, and serve as a fine transition until the storage issue has been solved.

Of course subsidies for coal and oil should be phased out ASAP, but let's not paint a pure coal and oil transitional period as better.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [โ€“] 0 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    You can't just replace coal and oil by nuclear power. it takes decades to build a new plant and is very expensive. Money that is better spend in investing in wind and solar.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • You can't just replace coal and oil by nuclear power. it takes decades to build a new plant and is very expensive.

    That's been said for over a decade at this point. We could have had plenty of nuclear power plants and maintained/developed expertise in the area if clean energy was a goal that was taken seriously by Europe. Both solar and wind are innately inefficient in terms of W/m^2, and wind has the additional problem of noise pollution and environmental impact.

  • source
  • parent