Solar and wind are still more sustainable than nuclear.
this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2026
51 points (91.8% liked)
News
39713 readers
1751 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Get off your high horse and replace coal and gas with nuclear if that's what gets us off fossil fuels
For people that promote one over the other, my answer is always "why not both"?
Areas that are good for nuclear are likely not as good for solar or wind. The latter two are generally more sustainable, but also more temperamental towards environmental conditions for output.
So my thought is, built all three in the locations best suited to whatever, and also build to storage capacity where possible to manage peak/off-peak loads.
Get off your high horse and replace coal and gas with nuclear if that’s what gets us off fossil fuels
"Don't let perfect be the enemy of good"
With how cheap solar has become, there's no reason for major fossil fuel using countries with plentiful land like China or the U.S. to choose nuclear over it. Wind is a greater investment than solar, but still far cheaper than building a nuclear power plant and without the need to store waste in a long-term manner afterwards.
far cheaper than building a nuclear power plant and without the need to store waste in a long-term manner afterwards.
After the 1980s, nuke plants changed from this narrative.
But nobody is replacing coal and gas with nuclear because it's total economic insanity. What they do instead is talking about replacing it with nuclear soon™, so they can ignore renewables and burn some more of those tasty fossil fuels.
I'm not anti-nuclear by a longshot
But I think the time to be building new nuclear plants was probably 20 years ago and that window has kind of passed.
The unfortunate truth is nuclear plants take a long time to get approval, build, and start generating electricity for the grid, and there's only so much you can or should do to try to speed that process up, because if you cut too many corners the potential for things to go wrong is enormous.
Solar and wind can be deployed a lot faster and we need that grid capacity now and at this point I think we'd probably be better served by building out as much solar and wind as we possibly can
The one thing that's hard to understand is that we need a baseline power supply that has real "cranking power" to bring the grid online from an outage. This is because of the immense resistance in the transformers, inverters, etc.
Solar, wind, and batteries do not have much cranking power at all. We'd need a non-negligible part of an eco-friendly grid to be nuclear, hydro, biomass, and/or huge flywheels. Basically a power source that has significant resistance (literally rotational inertia in most cases) to getting drawn down from high amps to lower amps, on demand. All of those are feasible, though from an ecology perspective there are good reasons to avoid hydro.
The benefit from nuclear is that it can provide a significant chunk of stable baseline power AND that cranking power to come back from outages.
There's a great YouTube video on this from Practical Engineering.
It's specifically this argument (straight fr the fossil lobby) that disallows progress. Nuclear is not going to happen anywhere close to time of demand where the neighbors can chime in, so not in democracies, but the staunch opposition against possible and sustainable alternatives will continue to burn fossil fuels.
Whatever gets us to net-zero fastest. I do find it hard to believe that safe nuclear is the fastest way to get there, rather than scaling up solar and wind deployment.
But, yeah, per MWh from fuel extraction to the grid nuclear has been safer than coal, methane, or petroleum (products). As long as it can be that safe, I'm fine not just broadening deployment but also reducing the time needed for a single deployment.
After we get climate change primarily driven by CO2 "under control", we can decommission nuclear in favor of "zero-waste" generation, but nuclear waste is no where near the problem climate change is (and will be for a long time after we reach net-zero).
An 82 year long life's electricity needs provided entirely by nuclear takes an amount of fuel the size of a soda can.
By that time CERN will have finished building the 100km long big brother of the LHC currently called the FCC. That is a very long timeline. I would hope that at that point battery and other storage technology will be so much better that nuclear just looks like even more of a complete joke in terms of both efficiency and practicability.
Weird that the UN makes such a statement, in most cases they try to remain neutral. The magic is in the word “could” more than triple. So it isn’t a prediction, it’s a wish/scenario or whatever. “Safer than any other option” - now that’s a tricky statement! As more countries start building nuclear reactors, one or two may get the bright idea to use the enriched uranium to create The Bomb, and the risk of a nuclear war is higher than ever, so no, nuclear reactors won’t make the world safer. Intriguingly, the majority of text in the AP article is about highlighting the countries where nuclear has led to tremendous conflict. And the uranium needs to be sourced from other countries, Russia comes to mind, so we create dependencies on countries we actually don’t want to do business with. I’m not convinced, sorry.
Nuclear! It's got what plants crave!