this post was submitted on 01 Oct 2023
1140 points (97.5% liked)

Technology

59421 readers
3645 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Hm… risk of nuclear disaster? Or more expense? Hm… I’ll have to think about this one.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Your logic is fallacious: the solution is not to build a nuclear reactor but seek an alternative.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes I understand. It was a cheeky reply. But alternatives are actually limited if you consider all the benefits of nuclear: high energy output, limited land use, no dependence on weather or time of day, no massive subsidy to Chinese manufacturing, no carbon, all resources mineable in the US, waste all physically contained…

Got alternatives to that?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

The best alternative is probably a diversified system of sustainable energy sources, along with batteries.

load more comments (1 replies)