• deegeese@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    17 hours ago

    Yes, we should be moving to solar instead of propping up uneconomic polluting industries like nuclear or coal.

    • andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Nuclear rarely ever perceived as a polluter in such discussions because there’s not much waste compared to nearly everything else. The major problem is with its’ very slow and expensive roll out and how gas\coal industries hate the guts of a technology that’s proven effective - so Germany famously rolled their nuclear programs back and got dependent on russian gas, thanks Schröeder (now works in russian oil companies, kek), Merkel and so-called greens.

    • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      15 hours ago

      Doing something because it’s the “most economical” is why we have a climate catastrophe on our hands. Plus solar can’t actually provide steady power on it’s own and never will be able to. Exotic nation wide energy storage solutions do not exists at our current level of technology. Instead solar/wind has to be offset by natural gas power plants.

    • Track_Shovel@slrpnk.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      15 hours ago

      I fully support solar and wind but I don’t think it’s a one size fits all at this point. I think solar needs to get a lot more efficient and better to cover all the applications that oil and gas and coal do.

      Even renewables need mining (sadly) which has significant impacts.