this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2026
55 points (91.0% liked)

Anarchism

3229 readers
90 users here now

Discuss anarchist praxis and philosophy. Don't take yourselves too seriously.


Other anarchist comms


Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] kalleboo@lemmy.world 1 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

I'm a fan of nuclear technology. Any plants working today should be maintained indefinitely, and in places that don't have any options due to geography building new ones today makes sense. And hopefully those investments can help make nuclear tech cheaper in the future with SMRs, etc.

That said, anywhere that is still burning fossil fuels on a nice sunny day should be investing all their energy money into building renewables. It's such an amazingly cheap and quick way to replace fossil fuels. Each panel hooked up is instantly displacing fossil fuels being burnt. And once you have enough solar to cover the daylight hours, you're going to be overproducing during the brightest hours and that will induce people to hook up batteries to profit from the "free" energy and now you've solved the duck curve hours.

I also have some reservations about humans being responsible enough. I live in Japan and do not trust that the energy companies have learned anything from Fukushima, they're just doing as little as possible to cover their asses. The end of Pax Americana and the rise of Climate Change unrest will also increase terrorism risks. It's not bad enough that I'm saying don't build nuclear, but I feel it's still enough of a risk that renewables should be preferred when possible (of course new tech mitigates this to some extent with safer spent fuels and smaller reactors). Just decentralizing the grid so that homes can generate their own power after storms is a huge win with renewables.