Given the high cost and long lead times involved, I’m incredibly dubious about this one actually happening.

  • RGB3x3@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    Because nuclear has WAY more power generation than other renewables.

    Solar, wind, geothermal, and hydro won’t be able to keep up with electricity demand if we want to eliminate fossil fuels. The power density of nuclear just can’t be matched.

      • RGB3x3@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You misunderstood what I’m saying. I’m not talking about what is powering things, I’m talking about what we need in order to power an all-electric future.

        Nuclear has a much higher power capacity for generation than solar and wind.

        If we want to replace the coal, natural gas, and oil in that graph, we’re going to need nuclear.

        • Hugohase@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          What we need now, to not transform earth into a postapocalyptic wasteland, are renewables. What type of electricity we use after that I don’t care about.