• Brave Little Hitachi Wand@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    19 hours ago

    I’m nominally pro, or maybe passively anti while cheaper, more scalable, and cleaner sources are at hand. If you’re already going full wind, solar, and geo and there’s still a rationale for a nuclear plant, I’m open to it. But that’s a big fat if.

    • gwl [he/him]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      18 hours ago

      The thing with nuclear power is that it’s FAR easier to convert a fossil fuel generator to nuclear than it is to convert it to green or to build a new one.

      And yes, I agree, we need more green, but we first need to kill off all the fossil fuel options.

      • wizzor@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        16 hours ago

        Although you are right in the sense that nuclear produces steam, I am not aware of any instance of this having been done. The steam turbine is such a small part of a nuclear plant.

        In my view nuclear is best as a baseline production and heat production method. The baseline part may reduce as grid batteries smooth out the volatile production of the renewables.

      • Brave Little Hitachi Wand@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        17 hours ago

        As a society, it’s easier to do everything at once rather than one thing at a time. Edit: The difference with nuclear is that it’s so much more expensive than other green options that spending on it now takes significant potential kwh out of the grid if it is given equal funding priority.