Hedging and diversification is important. Unforseen consequences and unknown future conditions can screw up your long term plans for 100% renewables. The more diverse our energy portfolio is, the unknowns become easier to weather.

That is the answer for why we build and research something that is more expensive and may divert resources away from better options. To argue that there is literally no place for energy development other than purely renewable is a difficult position to defend.

Your sandwich analogy is lacking because we're talking about far future consequences of our decision. Maybe you plan to eat the sandwich a week from today. Which do you buy? You don't have enough information to determine which will be better in a week. Do you pick the chain store's because it's full of preservatives? Do you decide to buy both in case one of them gets moldy just to make sure you have anything to eat?

The consequences of developing or not developing potential viable solutions to energy requirements can be far reaching. Completely dismissing alternative options is just not rational.

[–] Blake@feddit.uk 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I support continued research and development into nuclear power, but I oppose the construction of nuclear power plants for reasons beyond scientific research. My very first comment in my thread said as much. Perhaps you should read more closely?

I agree that diversification is important. Luckily, when it comes to renewables, we have an absolute feast of options:

Solar photovoltaic (generating electricity directly)
Solar thermal (heating water)
Wind, onshore
Wind, offshore
Geothermal
Hydroelectic (dams, rivers, etc.)
Wave
Biomass & biofuel
Artificial photosynthesis
Infrared thermals
Water vapor hydrostatic charge

You say that we should consider the long term implications of our decisions, and I wholeheartedly agree with you. That is another reason to favour renewable sources. The sun is the only thing we can be 100% sure that will always be there for humanity. If it’s gone, then so are we. Likewise for the wind - it’s guaranteed as long as the sun shines and that physics continues to work as expected.

Meanwhile, nuclear fissile material is a limited resource with extremely complex supply chains involved, with huge disruptions potential at any point in the extraction, refinement, handling, shipping, use and disposal of the material. Not to mention all of the things that can go wrong with a nuclear power plant - mistakes in maintenance or operation can leave it inoperable in a way which is extremely expensive and complex to fix.

Solar panels and wind turbines are so easy to install, maintain and repair that you could do it safely by having a high school level understanding of electronics and following a 20-minute YouTube tutorial.

A thought experiment for you: Can you describe a scenario where either solar power or wind power are no longer viable sources of electrical supply, without a mass extinction event also occurring?

[–] PhantomPhanatic@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why would we limit our hedging to non-world destroying scenarios? It seems we're already on track for a mass extinction event anyway. The reason you hedge is exactly for the worst case.

[–] Blake@feddit.uk 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Are you serious? The reason I said that is because if we’re all fucking dead it doesn’t really matter what power plant we have because no one will be around to use it…

[–] PhantomPhanatic@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Yes.