• HeartyBeast@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    11 months ago

    It’s not a zero-sum game and we are in a climate emergency.

    As I type this, wind is only making up 13% of grid demand, down from well over 50% last week - which means that gas generation is sitting at over 62% http://gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

    Nuclear is a reasonable lower carbon way of serving base-load when wind/solar aren’t delivering . I just wish, as with all things climate-related, we had committed to this 30 years ago.

    • Deceptichum@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      And renewables are quicker, cheaper, and lower footprint.

      Its a no brainer. People need to let go of ‘50s nuclear romanticism.

      • HeartyBeast@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        And once again - it’s not a zero-game and we are in a climate emergency. Nuclear is a useful adjunct to renewables and some people need to let go of their 1970s nuclear doomerism.

        • Deceptichum@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          But we don’t, there is zero benefit to building nuclear today over renewables.

          And it’s not doom, it’s common sense. Renewables are better long term and quicker and cheaper to setup today, why take the worse option during an emergency?

          • HeartyBeast@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            11 months ago

            But we don’t, there is zero benefit to building nuclear today over renewables.

            What are your practical proposals for generating 25 Gigawatts over a sustained period on a day like today when there is not much wind and negligable solar generation?