Post 3225801 by InvaderXan@kitty.town
 (DIR) More posts by InvaderXan@kitty.town
 (DIR) Post #3225800 by Laurelai@mastodon.starrevolution.org
       2019-01-21T12:28:31Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       Experts: The only way to save the planet is nuclear energy https://futurism.com/the-byte/nuclear-energy-can-save-earth
       
 (DIR) Post #3225801 by InvaderXan@kitty.town
       2019-01-21T18:28:38Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @Laurelai Other experts: Nope.
       
 (DIR) Post #3225802 by Laurelai@mastodon.starrevolution.org
       2019-01-21T18:31:49Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @InvaderXan A lot of people are coming forward for nuclear actually.
       
 (DIR) Post #3225803 by InvaderXan@kitty.town
       2019-01-21T18:36:02Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @Laurelai I’ll admit, it’s better than fossil fuels, because anything’s better than fossil fuels. And I don’t buy into the demonisation that a lot of people spread.But, per watt, solar energy is currently the cheapest energy source on the planet. Particularly in places without an existing grid, like Africa and parts of India, where nuclear will still involve laying a lot of cables.
       
 (DIR) Post #3225804 by Laurelai@mastodon.starrevolution.org
       2019-01-21T18:38:43Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @InvaderXan Its not a matter of cost honestly. Its a matter of speed and grid stability. The article outlines that solar and wind simply cannot be built fast enough to decarbonize the grid. Using wind and solar it would take 150 years and thats if they can keep the grid stable, and they cant.
       
 (DIR) Post #3225805 by Laurelai@mastodon.starrevolution.org
       2019-01-21T18:41:26Z
       
       1 likes, 1 repeats
       
       @InvaderXan China can build a nuclear reactor in less than 5 years and they can build more than one at a time. Using nuclear we could decarbonize the grid before climate change kills us all.