Solar power expected to dominate electricity generation by 2050—even without more ambitious climate policies::In pursuit of the ambitious goal of reaching net-zero emissions, nations worldwide must expand their use of clean energy sources. In the case of solar energy, this change may already be upon us.

  • vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Yes really.

    Molten salt reactors are not significantly cheaper to build own or operate, on the contrary. I’m making an economic argument here.

    • 0x0@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      If you put economics before the environment then sure, nuclear’s not viable, never was.

      And oil’s only viable because of mass subsidies and tax exemptions.

      • vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        If you put economics before the environment then sure, nuclear’s not viable, never was.

        Wait what? Surely nuclear gets less viable if you factor in the cost of cleaning up after yourself.

        And oil’s only viable because of mass subsidies and tax exemptions.

        That, and massive externalization.

        • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Those molten salt reactors can run on what the current reactors create as nuclear waste. They actually help with the cleanup process by breaking the radioactive waste down to a few very short lived ions that cease to be radioactive quite quickly. The other nice part about them is that you can’t make weapons with them.

          • frezik
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m in favor of subsidizing nuclear reactors that can reuse waste. That’s a better idea than the current strategy of letting it sit around, or the potential future of burying it and hoping nobody digs it up again millennia from now.

            There is little other reason to bother with nuclear anymore.

          • vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m familiar with the technology. It’s great.

            It won’t get built because you can’t make money off it without running the risk of government changing its mind as soon as you’re done building the thing.

            See also, theme park Kalkar.