this post was submitted on 28 May 2024
609 points (99.0% liked)

World News

39041 readers
2748 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jabjoe@feddit.uk 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It's a new area, but there are companies : https://www.recyclesolar.co.uk/

Life cycle comparing isn't as simple as your thinking: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421506002758 Happy to look if you have a unbiased source for life cycle emissions comparison.

But costs and time is a no brainer: https://www.energysage.com/about-clean-energy/nuclear-energy/solar-vs-nuclear/

You as also don't want to be burning coal for a decade while you build a nuclear power plant. Then it's expensive to run compared to solar too. The CO2 costs of waiting for nuclear should be included for nuclear too.

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world -2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I know it's a new area. I am involved with it. Now show me the one that has a lower carbon footprint today. Including batteries btw no cheating

[–] jabjoe@feddit.uk -3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

That's part of the issue with nuclear, it's not today. It's a decade to do, power coal in the mean time, pouring concrete which also cause a load of CO2. When it's finally running, it's clean, but expensive. In the mean time you could have solar running 8 years and it is cheaper to power and install. Nuclear is going to struggle to compete. Until fusion, but even that, if it ever comes, might not be cheap enough compared. Cheap, fast and clean wins.

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world -2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Thanks for admitting you have nothing with a lower carbon footprint today. It was very big of you.

[–] jabjoe@feddit.uk 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

As I said, if you want to start today, solar is without doubt the way to go. If you are dealing in decades, and much more money, nuclear becomes an option. But in the time building it, you're poluting and it's not clear it's even cleaner long run discounting that, let alone including it.

As a bonus, solar is safer too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_accidents_by_country

So nuclear just isn't the choice to make in 2024.

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world -3 points 5 months ago

God victory is so sweet.