this post was submitted on 28 Dec 2023
928 points (97.7% liked)

Technology

60109 readers
1856 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sure, WA is an outlier because of its geography (more consistent rivers), but other states that are very similar to each other have huge differences. So it's not something that's easily explained by geography or local politics.

I see two possibilities here:

  • US stagnates at some percent because the bottom states refuse to change
  • bottom states follow their neighbors' lead and renewable adoption accelerates
[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

ultimately, it's going to be economic, if for example, nuclear becomes the cheapest form of energy, it's going to become really popular, spread rapidly, develop quickly, become cheaper, safer, and eventually any state with some amount of sense in it is going to switch over, regardless of political status.

It just doesn't make sense to support coal when energy is cheaper and safer coming from another source.

The only other way it would go is federal regulation or subsidies.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

In my area, the lack of nuclear has been largely due to FUD. I'm in Utah, and every time nuclear has been suggested, the public has shot it down, despite having the perfect geography for it. The plant could be placed on the west side of the mountains where few people live, so even if there's a disaster, it's not going to impact the populated valley, and there's a ton of space in the desert to bury the waste. Also, coal ash is more radioactive than nuclear waste, yet we have coal plants here.

[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

yeah, for some reason the public is just incredibly apprehensive about anything that would be beneficial if it might even moderately inconvenience them. I will never not be amused by the time that germany shut down a brand new nuclear plant before it even went online. I've made a lot of bad decisions in my life, but burning millions, potentially even billions of dollars is not one of them. Not yet at least.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Wow, that's ridiculous, especially given the recent energy issues due to the Russia-Ukraine war.

[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 11 months ago

that reactor being shut down was back during the nuclear energy ban germany had. This was well before the current global climate, doesn't make it a sound financial choice though.