• PugJesus@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    23 hours ago

    Yeah, unfortunately, nuclear power should have been heavily invested in about… 50 years ago. The “The best time was yesterday, the second-best time is now” line doesn’t apply with advancements in other energy sources and the sheer time it takes to build and get a nuclear plant operational. The best time was yesterday - now is perhaps the worst time.

    Still, it is always good to push back on anti-nuclear sentiment. Every nuclear plant kept running is a massive amount of fossil fuels removed from power generation. I remember when Merkel closed a ton of nuclear plants in Germany for dogshit PR reasons, handing power back to fossil fuel suppliers.

    • Draconic NEO@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      17 hours ago

      Also there’s a specific type of reactor that is optimal because it allows for more easily recycling the spent fuel to use it again, and unfortunately these have not been built as much as the other type of reactor.

      • booly@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 hours ago

        It’s because fuel is such an insignificant percentage of the overall cost of building, operating, and maintaining nuclear power. Increasing the complexity of the reactor in order to make the fuel use more efficient is basically a nonstarter, economically.