• Argonne@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    In which case they would choose Nuclear over Solar 9/10 times. I’m onboard

    • Crashumbc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      3 days ago

      They would probably use nuclear for base load, until something better is found. But it won’t “replace” solar.

    • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 days ago

      I’m on board with whatever the scientists conclude. I’m not a scientist, so if they say nuclear, I’m behind nuclear. If they say solar, I’m behind solar. If they say wind, I’m behind wind. Trust scientists. If you’re trained in science, definitely verify - there’s some bad science out there for sure. But if you have no expertise in the area, just trust the scientific community.

    • Allero@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      This might not be the case anymore, now that solar is dirt cheap.

      But, as another commenter said, I’m onboard with any decision that scientists (including both energy and climate sciences) and engineers come up with working together.

        • justme@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          The down voters and you should maybe reread my comment and the one I replied to… Sorry to burst your bubble.

          • pancakes@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 days ago

            I did, it looks like an illogical dislike of nuclear. Not sure if it’s ignorance or just an emotional response but you might want to do some research. A lot of people don’t like things they don’t understand.