Technology

59578 readers

2862 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
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, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

439

Solar power expected to dominate electricity generation by 2050—even without more ambitious climate policies (techxplore.com)

submitted 1 year ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

50 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Solar power expected to dominate electricity generation by 2050—even without more ambitious climate policies::In pursuit of the ambitious goal of reaching net-zero emissions, nations worldwide must expand their use of clean energy sources. In the case of solar energy, this change may already be upon us.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] 0x0@programming.dev 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If you put economics before the environment then sure, nuclear's not viable, never was.

And oil's only viable because of mass subsidies and tax exemptions.

[–] vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If you put economics before the environment then sure, nuclear's not viable, never was.

Wait what? Surely nuclear gets less viable if you factor in the cost of cleaning up after yourself.

And oil's only viable because of mass subsidies and tax exemptions.

That, and massive externalization.

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Those molten salt reactors can run on what the current reactors create as nuclear waste. They actually help with the cleanup process by breaking the radioactive waste down to a few very short lived ions that cease to be radioactive quite quickly. The other nice part about them is that you can't make weapons with them.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 2 points 1 year ago

I'm in favor of subsidizing nuclear reactors that can reuse waste. That's a better idea than the current strategy of letting it sit around, or the potential future of burying it and hoping nobody digs it up again millennia from now.

There is little other reason to bother with nuclear anymore.

[–] vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 year ago

I’m familiar with the technology. It’s great.

It won’t get built because you can’t make money off it without running the risk of government changing its mind as soon as you’re done building the thing.