• Lemzlez@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The difference being that when you’re 10 billion into a renewables project, you usually have SOME generation already, whereas your nuclear reactor isn’t doing shit until it’s fully completed.

    I don’t mind nuclear, but the fact is that the reactors take decades to build, whereas renewables can be deployed far quicker. Going all-in on nuclear, and then twiddling your thumbs for 10-15 years while the reactors are built doesn’t sound like a great idea.

    • Kalash@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      I agree, ideally you should do both in parallel. But it’s still better than doing a Germany and ditching nuclear for reneweables … and then realising you actually don’t have enough baseload so you add more coal power plants.