• bouh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    That’s a so stupid take it’s hilarious. It’d be a nice world if ecofanatics were spending half their energy against coal instead of fighting nuclear.

    • wewbull@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Being against coal and gas, I want the fastest solution that displaces coal and gas. That’s wind and solar in most locations. It’s not nuclear. Nuclear takes a long time to build, and while you build it you’re still burning coal and gas. Recent experience is that you take the original schedule / budget and multiply by 2 to 3, so that’s even more time you’re still burning coal.

      Granted, if you already have nuclear, don’t decommission it, but don’t build more either.