▲ 2208 ▼ Young climate activist tells Greenpeace to drop ‘old-fashioned’ anti-nuclear stance (www.theguardian.com) submitted 2 years ago by sv1sjp@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world 1121 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] ReluctantZen@feddit.nl 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Yea, so our focus should be both renewable and nuclear. Why does it have to be one or the other? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] gmtom@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Because any money spent on nuclear is money not spent on renewables. Most of these projects are government funded or at least subsidised. So a couple billion spent on a nuclear reactor is a couple billion tied up in something that wont make power for 10-20 years. Whereas if we spent that money on wind farms you could be generating power in less than a year. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ReluctantZen@feddit.nl 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Sure, so cut government funding for fossil fuel sources. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] halfempty@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago That is a given, regardless. Let's use our limited research and development and infrastructure funding to advance renewables. Not high-cost, centralized tech tied to the nuclear bomb industry for it's refined uranium sources. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] gmtom@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Because any money spent on nuclear is money not spent on renewables. Most of these projects are government funded or at least subsidised. So a couple billion spent on a nuclear reactor is a couple billion tied up in something that wont make power for 10-20 years. Whereas if we spent that money on wind farms you could be generating power in less than a year. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ReluctantZen@feddit.nl 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Sure, so cut government funding for fossil fuel sources. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] halfempty@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago That is a given, regardless. Let's use our limited research and development and infrastructure funding to advance renewables. Not high-cost, centralized tech tied to the nuclear bomb industry for it's refined uranium sources. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ReluctantZen@feddit.nl 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Sure, so cut government funding for fossil fuel sources. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] halfempty@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago That is a given, regardless. Let's use our limited research and development and infrastructure funding to advance renewables. Not high-cost, centralized tech tied to the nuclear bomb industry for it's refined uranium sources. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] halfempty@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago That is a given, regardless. Let's use our limited research and development and infrastructure funding to advance renewables. Not high-cost, centralized tech tied to the nuclear bomb industry for it's refined uranium sources. permalink fedilink source parent