• BigNote
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    10 months ago

    I’m increasingly of the same opinion, however, I dislike the fact that even talking about nuclear as a potential bridge technology is such a polarizing issue.

    I am very far from being an expert on the subject and accordingly don’t have a strong opinion either way as to what role, if any, it can usefully play in transitioning to sustainable energy models.

    What I don’t like is the immediate labeling of either side of the issue as somehow automatically being indicative of bad faith or “shilling” on behalf of a larger, nearly conspiratorial interest.

    • jcit878@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      10 months ago

      its not that nuclear is bad, but it’s very expensive and takes a long time to commission, where the bridge between now and full scale renewable is on a shorter time frame. if the idea of using nuclear as a transition was made 10-20 years ago, absolutely. now, it’s kinda too late.

      so pretty much the most economical solution is to go all in on renewable from now on

      • BigNote
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        Thanks for the response. That makes sense and I think I’m probably on-board.