I mean im guessing its because it may not be as profitable, or atleast at first, boycotts or directly just capitalism fucking everything up? i legit always imagine aliens seeing us still use coal while having DISCOVERED IN 1932

  • poVoq@slrpnk.netM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    It’s the opposite, convincing governments to invest in totally uneconomic nuclear reactors that will take 15-20 years to build, ensures that these countries will continue to depend on fossile fuels for the next 15-20 years.

    • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 hours ago

      They do not take that long to build. At all. Besifes, most of the build time is because of red tape, like requiring a plant to be FULLY DESIGNED, reviewed, and approved by multiple bodies before they can even break ground on one in the US.

      It is red tape and fear mongering, not an actual feature of nuclear power itself.

      • poVoq@slrpnk.netM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 hours ago

        It’s the current reality in both the US and Europe. And looking at the various serious construction defects that are surfacing in French plants that were build at a time when the government waived much of the red tape, these extra precautions save a lot of costs over the lifetime of the plants.

        Nuclear plants are very complex machines and government contractors are well known to cut corners and do shoddy work when not supervised well. This has nothing to do with fear mongering 🤷

    • Angelusz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Renewables are best for sure. I guess if the required logistics are not in place to get them online faster, I guess waiting for fusion is better.

      I would have thought it could be done faster. Thanks for the info!