Also, we can build both. Surely you appreciate that there are other factors slowing the speed of the energy transition besides the availability of capital, and that while nuclear has its own roadblocks, many of them are different from + don't overlap or compete with those standing in the way of renewables.

[–] Blake -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Capital (money) and capital (political) are the only roadblocks between us and a 100% renewable future. So no, there's no value to wasting either of those on nuclear when they could be more wisely proportioned to renewables. Pretty much the only resource that nuclear consumes that isn't consumed by most renewables would be uranium. I'm willing to just go ahead and say we can leave that one in the ground.

[–] Ertebolle@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They’re really not, and if you think that then you need to read more. And “political capital” isn’t some big fungible pool of quatloos, it’s a lot of little tiny stupid slow fights.

[–] Blake 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Okay, go ahead and list the resources used for building nuclear reactors that isn't used for building other renewables.

[–] derGottesknecht@feddit.de -2 points 1 year ago

Uranium.

And thats about it.