• JasSmith@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t understand what you’re arguing. There has been no maintenance failure. They delayed maintenance during the recent energy crisis, but the reactors remain perfectly safe. Do you think pointing out the fact that reactors require maintenance is an argument against nuclear? Do you have any idea how much maintenance is required for wind and solar?

    Albania, Iceland, and Paraguay rely on primarily hydro power. The same as Tasmania. You appear to be using the same argument as above, refusing to acknowledge that most countries are unable to utilise hydro power generation. Give me the case for how every other country in the world is able to rely on hydro. Show me your working. Provide some citations.

    • Quatity_Control@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Nah boy, you claimed nuclear is the answer, yet no one runs 100% nuclear. You have several examples of renewables already delivering 100%. And none of them are 100% hydro. RENEWABLES, not just hydro, are the clear and unmistakeable winner for energy provision. Fucking around with nuclear has been proven to be too expensive and not maintainable by the best example you have, France.

      And no one has resolved the nuclear waste issue which makes nuclear the worst possible environmental choice for energy. I’m not gong to bother to cite anything so self evident. You want to claim otherwise, you shown us your citations.