• Szyler@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    17 hours ago

    It is if you consider the cost of the redundancy required for renewable energy to serve as base load once you cut oil, gass and coal out of the supply.

    Nuclear can cover this base load until we develop better storage systems for large scale use.

    If we had just built nuclear with the modern architecture developed in the 70’s onwards we’d be able to move away from fossile fuel FAAR more easily today, without any mjor disasters from the reactor technology from the 50’s.

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      16 hours ago

      If we had just moved ahead with solar heat and hot water, or even solar panels, back when President Carter was trying to encourage it, we would already be moved away from fossil fuels

      My interest in renewables, in ecology, in recycling, was all from growing up with that. But how did we let fossil fuel companies take over the conversation, guide our choices down the road to their profits at our cost?

      • Szyler@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        15 hours ago

        Many ways away from fossil fuel, both solar and nuclear would have been great options, but even with early solar, we would have had to use coal or gass for base load without nuclear was what u was trying to say.

        How we let them was just by not standing up and not holding them accountable. That is still the issue today. They knew for DECADES and still is profiting with government subsidies everywhere. We need to push politicians away from lobbying and give them the support they need to be firm with the 1%.