I mean im guessing its because it may not be as profitable, or atleast at first, boycotts or directly just capitalism fucking everything up? i legit always imagine aliens seeing us still use coal while having DISCOVERED IN 1932
this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2025
21 points (64.4% liked)
Green Energy
3046 readers
71 users here now
Everything about energy production and storage.
Related communities:
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It is also massively uneconomical. Even with existing subsidies, like free insurance and long term storage, plant operators don't want to keep going.
Modern day nuclear advocates are like the Japanese soldiers in the 70s refusing to admit the war was lost decades ago.
Tbh I'd still rather have something economically unviable funded by my taxes than pumping CO2 into the air. And it's not really that much of an either or thing with renewables, both can/should be done but the important thing is to stop subsidizing fossil fuels (which are to this day highly subsidised which makes the comparison even worse)
With the same amount of money you can build so much more renewable generation and storage than nuclear.
This also assumes the same pot of money is being used for all kinds of energy generation, which is not always the case because bureaucracy. Also also pretty much all renewables are intermittent besides hydro which is not available everywhere. It might be more expensive, but both having diverse energy sources and baseline power is good for the grid. Wind and solar also do not provide any grid Inertia,, which is important for maintain frequency. I wanna say it was Ireland (feel free to check where) that actually had too few conventional generators and too much wind, and they had to build basically just a massive flywheel to regulate their grid