This is the key point. One supports or supposed policies. But “nuclear” is not one; it’s a power source, not a policy. So then the serious discussions are what new power plants to build, and when to retire current nuclear plants… And those are both worthwhile topics with totally different considerations and answers.
It also depends where you live, because the alternatives are geographically dependent. Are you in South Dakota? Might wanna do solar or wind.
It also depends what scale you mean. A slightly wealthy homeowner in the US can afford their rooftop solar, but many people can’t afford it or can’t install it. And this matters, right? If the power companies are fucking us over, using less of their juice is a good idea, but only of we can… And this all ties into the relative benefits of nuclear.
![[Discussion] Are you pro or anti nuclear energy? Why?](https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/pictrs/image/f1dcd9bc-51f8-4d82-ba04-9c34a26ea389.webp){kind=link}
It’s less efficient compared to more decentralized renewable energy; it’s ok to keep the working centrals but I’m against new ones.
This is the key point. One supports or supposed policies. But “nuclear” is not one; it’s a power source, not a policy. So then the serious discussions are what new power plants to build, and when to retire current nuclear plants… And those are both worthwhile topics with totally different considerations and answers.
It also depends where you live, because the alternatives are geographically dependent. Are you in South Dakota? Might wanna do solar or wind.
It also depends what scale you mean. A slightly wealthy homeowner in the US can afford their rooftop solar, but many people can’t afford it or can’t install it. And this matters, right? If the power companies are fucking us over, using less of their juice is a good idea, but only of we can… And this all ties into the relative benefits of nuclear.