With climate change looming, it seems so completely backwards to go back to using it again.

Is it coal miners pushing to keep their jobs? Fear of nuclear power? Is purely politically motivated, or are there genuinely people who believe coal is clean?

Edit, I will admit I was ignorant to the usage of coal nowadays.

Now I’m more depressed than when I posted this

    • AnAngryAlpaca@feddit.de
      213·
      1 year ago
      • It takes 20 years to build
      • nobody knows how much nuclear fuel will cost in 20 years
      • you have to take out a big loan and make interest payments on it for maybe 30 years before you start making a profit
      • if you don’t have enough water for cooling because of climate change, the plant must shut down
      • if your neighbor decides to start a war against you, your nuclear plants become a liability, see Ukraine.

      I think smaller, decentralized renewable energy is cheaper in the short and long run and has a much lower risk in case of accidents, natural Desasters or attacks.

      • Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        24·
        1 year ago

        SMR (small modular reactors) are looking like they could become the next hip thing in nuclear power tech.

        Basically a lot lower initial investment and offer a lot more flexibility.

        Linky link

        The link has a lot of info on them

        • hoshikarakitaridia@sh.itjust.works
          31·
          1 year ago

          I really don’t see that as a good progression. We want to focus on renewables because that’s the most sustainable way to go. Why go back to nuclear again?

          That said if you are saying that’s where the industry is moving even though that’s probably not the best approach, fair enough. My opinion has zero effect on the industry.

    • dotmatrix@lemmy.ftp.rip
      181·
      1 year ago

      A single new reactor takes decades to build and costs billions. Investing in solar, wind, the grid and storage instead will generate more energy, faster, and for less.

      • Kalash@feddit.ch
        34·
        1 year ago

        It’s not “instead of”.

        You’re supposed to run nuclear along side renewables. Opposed to running fossile fuels alongside renewables. Either way, something has be running besides renewables.

        • schnokobaer@feddit.de
          61·
          1 year ago

          Opposed to running fossile fuels alongside renewables.

          But that’s literally what you’re gonna have to do for 20+ years if you decide to go both ways and also build new nuclear plants. Put all your budget into renewables at once and you instantly cut down on the fossil fuel you’d otherwise burn while waiting for your reactor to go online, all while you’re saving money from the cheap energy yield which you can reinvest into more renewables or storage R&D to eventually overcome the requirement to run something alongside it.

        • kugel7c@feddit.de
          41·
          1 year ago

          No 100% renewables is viable. You don’t need anything running beside it.

      • DrQuint@lemm.ee
        132·
        1 year ago

        “BuT thE WaSTe diSPoSaL PrObLEm”

        Meanwhile coal:

        “Oh that thing that’s more radioactive than nuclear waste? Yeah, just toss it in the air. Who cares”

    • DogMuffinsEnglish
      9·
      1 year ago

      I don’t necessarily agree, but the usual arguments against are cost, lead time, and waste.

    • Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      1627·
      1 year ago

      It’s just nuclear phobia.

      It’s literally the second safest form of energy production we have only behind solar.

      It’s literally safer than wind power.

      Yeah there’s been a few disasters with older reactor designs or reactors that were put where they shouldn’t have been, but even with those it’s still incredibly safe.