this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2024
497 points (99.6% liked)

Technology

59607 readers
3435 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/17558715

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] stoy@lemmy.zip 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

This is perfectly fair, I saw several anti nuclear power articles before thls, and I approached it from a more general viewpoint.

But if the alternative is coal, I'd go nuclear.

[โ€“] CurlyWurlies4All@slrpnk.net 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Well it's not really an either/or situation. The current Labor government's plan is a combination of majority renewables with gas and hydrogen. They are also running coal at the moment but have no plans to renew those plants during the transition. They've signed on to emissions reductions of 75% by 2035.

So you've got one plan which has some reduction targets (probably not steep enough) planned transition, costed and budgeted that doesn't require more coal, and one plan which will pull funding from renewables, and requires more coal until some time as which they can get nuclear approved, built and commercialised.