• Olgratin_Magmatoe@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    It’s that they cost so damn much

    The cost of continued fossil fuel use is far higher.

    rarely profitable

    Profit should not be the motivation of preventing our climate disaster from getting worse. If the private sector isn’t able to handle it, then the government needs to do so itself.

    And besides, the only reason fossil fuels are so competitive is because we are dumping billions of dollars in subsidies for them. Those subsidies should instead go towards things that aren’t killing the planet.

    • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Would it be better to dump billions into nuclear power plants that won’t come online for a decade at least, or to dump billions into renewables that can be online and reducing emissions in under a year?

      • Olgratin_Magmatoe@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        We should worldwide be putting trillions into both. Renewables should be first priority, but not all locations have good solar, wind, and battery options.

          • Claidheamh@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s the exact argument people have been making for 60 years, and look where we are now. Around 80% of the world’s energy is still from fossil fuels. Do you want to continue making the same mistakes as the previous generations?

      • Xavienth@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        You cannot run the entire grid on entirely renewable. We physically don’t have enough lithium in the world to make the batteries for it, and even if you don’t use lithium there would be untold ecological destruction to extract the rare earths.

        Renewable and hydroelectric is a solution but not viable everywhere and hydro also causes massive ecological destruction

        • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          If we started building nuclear powerplants right now it would take 10-20 years before they’re even online. That’s 10-20 years worth of technology improvements that could make it obsolete, especially if we don’t pin our hopes on nuclear baseload and start building a grid that can be 100% renewable.

          And that’s not even mentioning the truly massive budget overruns. Or the environmental impact of mining and refining fuel.

          • Xavienth@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            And you would be running 10-20 years of gas and coal power plants in addition to the renewables if you’re not in a suitable area for hydro because suitable grid scale energy storage solutions literally don’t exist. Maybe they will in 10-20 years, but would you bet on a maybe or go with nuclear which we know will work as a baseload?