• Black History Month@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Silliness. Your counterpoints are valid, but mostly restate my last comment with somehow even less sense. Buying solar panels from China isn’t more a national security risk than uranium from Australia? I don’t think you really have a well though out point here.

    I’ll restate my own here for posterity and leave you to it. Solar from China Russia bad. Nuclear from literally anyone else good. Nuclear is safer, cheaper, and more efficient in every way at scale.

    Remember, solar is untenable, poorly adopted, and is actively being pumped in price. This is as cheap as it will ever be all things equal. Nuclear has had none of those luxuries. If you think the price drop of a untenable solution is impressive, wait until you see one that really works.

    • itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Nuclear is consistently among the most expensive ways to generate power, and only afloat due to massive government subsidies, especially when it comes to waste storage. Whereas solar and wind are only beaten (in some metrics) by natural gas when it comes to power per dollar, getting even cheaper at scale.

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

      Your original point was that renewables are being blocked by China, Russia and the Middle East. I disagree on China, but that’s not the point. How will nuclear, with all strings attached, succeed there, whereas solar and wind won’t? Silliness.