You’d think this would give us some wiggle money to play with to build out new energy infrastructure. You’re wrong though, there is no wiggle. We need all renewables like Germany.

Although the transition to EVs will require an enormous increase in base production capacity, it would be wasteful to build out nuclear to meet it.

$16m an hour might seem like a lot of damage, but nuclear can only exacerbate economic loss which is equally important as climatic loss.

Renewables now!

  • Skies5394@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    8 months ago

    That economic loss isn’t affecting the people it needs to affect for there to be real change. That’s the problem.

  • ZephyrXero@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    8 months ago

    EVs are just a drop in the bucket. Most of the greenhouse gasses come from factories and industrial use

    • lntl@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      transportation accounts for 1/3 of emissions. as that demand transfers from oil to the electric grid, we’ll need a lot more renewable-only capacity

      • themusicman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Transitioning away from cars entirely is far cheaper and more viable than transitioning to EVs. Fuck cars

        • ChemicalPilgrim@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          We have all this car infrastructure already. Unless the plan is to somehow replace that all with light rail in the next ten years, EVs are a reasonable solution we can roll out on a shorter timeline.

    • SamsonSeinfelder@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      And in 6 years, we will end coal as the first nation of the industrialized countries. The US is currently planing to phase it out in 16 years. Some other countries do not even have a plan for the next 20 years. What is your point?

      • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        7 months ago

        There are more fossil fuels then just coal though. You could squint and if you were paid to be dishonest you could say that Lignite isn’t coal and therefore in 6 years when Germany is still burning Lignite, they have transitioned away from coal. Additionally they are not planning on transitioning away from Natural Gas at all.