• CapuccinoCoretto@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Chernobyl, Fukushima, 3 Mile Island. Plus uranium is another non-renewable resource.

    I’m still pro nuke as getting off fossil fuels is of the utmost urgency, but we will have to learn to live off wind and solar.

      • LeFrog@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Ah yes, the Fusion Reactors that are coming soon ™ (promised decades ago).

        We need energy now, not at some unknown point in the future. Of course, resaeching this technology may make sense. But it does not help today and also not the next 20 years.

        • DahGangalang@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Yeah, putting your hopes / goals on a fusion powered future is foolish at this point.

          But I def support (lots of) research into it.

      • Gladaed@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Having become a carbon neutral economy a couple years ago since we obviously adhere to the Paris agreement this does not seem like a good solution as we already (would have to have) deployed solutions based on current technology.

        • DahGangalang@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Agree that we can get to carbon neutral / carbon negative with current tech.

          I do think making plans based on having it are foolish at best.

          But I do think we need to keep working on research of it. If we ever hope to achieve a world with “electricity too cheap to meter”, nuclear fusion is the key to it. (That and dyson spheres, but that’s kinda not in scope of discussion).