• datendefekt@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    No, just no. Nuclear might be better than fossil fuels in the short term, but there’s a lot we’re asking of from later generations.

    We have perfectly viable non-poisonous and non-radioactive solutions, but I guess renewables aren’t manly enough for the military.

    • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      Renewables still have holes in their capacity especially for more environmentally unstable regions. Got clouds solar efficiency is fucked, also pollar nights exist in some places. No water? Hydro is a non factor. Wind can in theory be maintained anywhere but has some scale issues that a military base either doesn’t want to deal with or can’t. Finally battery tech is so and so, perhaps in a decade or so it’ll be advanced enough to overcome a lot of the limits but there’s still some issues.

      Nuclear is honestly the best we have for a relatively low maintenance easily stockable power generation system. Plus here’s hoping it succeeds and reinvigorates interest in nuclear ships, kind of a shame that project was shelved during Eisenhower’s admin.