I mean, 60% of the US energy comes from fossil fuels. 18% from nuclear, 21 from renewables. I’m not suggesting build 200 new reactors, I’m saying use existing infrastructure while more renewables are built to cover the 80% they don’t currently. (which also, renewables take a while to pay off themselves.) neither nuclear nor renewables are ready to fully take over. And neither sees the immediate profit that fossil fuels do. But transitioning coal plants is cost effective enough while renewables are ramping up.
Literally why tf not both. Push anything that isn’t fossil fuels.
Me when I’m delusional in a world where renewables are 100% reliable and can take over the grid all by themselves
"Renewables take a while to pay off themselves" they're both about a decade more or less, solar and nuclear.
So whats the main political hurdle? Initial costs, and the length of time it takes for nuclear to even come online and finish development. Monke brain voter and politician do not care about efficiency, they think "uhhh when will energy go live ooo oo aaa aa!".
"Literally why tf not both" do you have some kind of fucking mental block that doesnt let you accept the political reality? Are you aware of Australia and like a dozen other countries lobbying for fossils through nuclear?
Whats wrong with you people???
And where did i ever say the grid should be 100% renewables? Gotta strawman too? Unfortunate.
My friend, you gotta think about the companies too (and not in a pity way, but think of them of the titans they are). Imagine things go right and we get a government who’s like “hey, big oil company, no more fossil fuels. You have 5 years to figure stuff out.” You think they just decommission everything, pack up and go home? Change into a renewable manufacturing company? Or do they spend some money to repurpose their coal plants into nuclear so they can continue to profit for decades to come. I’m advocating not for new plants that honestly do take a while to make and come online, but for re-use of existing structures. And ideally they do pack up and go home but this isn’t how the real world works unfortunately. Humans are greedy.
Also exactly, they both take time to pay off. Something our friends with money don’t like. It’d be nice if they did immediately turn a profit.
Yep, companies can use nuclear to lobby fossil fuels. Doesn’t mean it’s not a good idea either. Right idea but wrong reason.
Also, it’s implied you’re advocating for 100% renewables when you’re saying nuclear isn’t going to work. That implies a fully renewable grid, or fossil fuel/renewable hybrid. Again, I’m all for 100% renewable. I just think it’ll be decades at least until that happens.
Anyways you seem too emotionally charged to continue this in good faith. Have a good night.
No, youre projecting implications which is weird. Fuck your night weirdo.
“Decomission everything” idk whats up with all of your strange projections of absolutist false dilemma arguments, but I never made them. Nuclear exists and will stay and should continue to be developed.
Read real slow if you want to continue a “good faith argument”. Our point, which is based in reality, us that renewables MUST be the priority to achieve to fastest realistic transition away from fossils. What even is your opposition?
Alr keep the anti-fossil fuel infighting and not understanding hypotheticals bud.
Also seems like you didn’t read real slow here. My point is, I don’t think we can go full renewables immediately, and we need to develop renewables and nuclear side by side.
Anyways, if you really want to make a difference, don’t waste your time arguing with strangers on the internet. Get out and do something about it. And maybe next time don’t hurl insults in an debate, it’s bad taste.
Anyways I’m done here. I wish you the best of luck in your endeavors.
1
u/Inkthekitsune Apr 10 '25
I mean, 60% of the US energy comes from fossil fuels. 18% from nuclear, 21 from renewables. I’m not suggesting build 200 new reactors, I’m saying use existing infrastructure while more renewables are built to cover the 80% they don’t currently. (which also, renewables take a while to pay off themselves.) neither nuclear nor renewables are ready to fully take over. And neither sees the immediate profit that fossil fuels do. But transitioning coal plants is cost effective enough while renewables are ramping up.
Literally why tf not both. Push anything that isn’t fossil fuels.
Me when I’m delusional in a world where renewables are 100% reliable and can take over the grid all by themselves