this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2024
664 points (69.6% liked)

Memes

45679 readers
880 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 25 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (11 children)

I would rather see more investment on better renewable tech then relaying on biohazard.

You would be surprised to know the amount of scientific research with actual solutions that aren't applied cause goes against the fossil fuel companies and whatnot. Due to the fact that they have market monopoly.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (3 children)

I would rather see more investment on better renewable tech then relaying on biohazard.

Modern nuclear energy produces significantly less waste and involves more fuel recycling than the historical predecessors. But these reactors are more expensive to build and run, which means smaller profit margins and longer profit tails.

Solar and Wind are popular in large part because you can build them up and profit off them quickly in a high-priced electricity market (making Texas's insanely expensive ERCOT system a popular location for new green development, paradoxically). But nuclear power provides a cheap and clean base load that we're only able to get from coal and natural gas, atm. If you really want to get off fossil fuels entirely, nuclear is the next logical step.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

Economicaly might be viable, but there is so much unused experimental tech that has higher potential and scales better (higher scientific development as well).

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)