792
this post was submitted on 14 May 2026
792 points (98.8% liked)
Technology
84646 readers
4184 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Article pitches this as either/or when it's very obviously going to be more of one producing more of the other.
I do get tired of the "nuclear energy is better than climate change!" as though our voracious demand for cheap energy will neatly cap itself the moment we get X new nuclear facilities online.
But I also get tired of hearing people insist that nuclear energy is on the horizon, when nobody is building new plants. This is a vaporware technology. It isn't in the production pipeline and there's no reason to believe posting your Nuke-Love online will change that
https://world-nuclear.org/nuclear-reactor-database/summary
Excuse me, nobody outside of China is building new reactors
And India. So you know, half of all people.
Building 5x the number of fossil fuel plants as nuclear plants.
If you believe nuclear is preventing climate change, you need to square these figures