nytimes.com
www.nytimes.com

My impression is that this is a PR push, designed to avoid having to invest in renewables, and let them keep on burning gas and coal, rather than something likely to come to fruition.

  • silence7@slrpnk.netOPEnglish
    2·
    3 hours ago

    They’re talking about 5+ years on the new nuclear in these. And they haven’t done it before, so a 30% deadline slip is realistic.

    You can put up a lot of wind and solar in that time.

    • 0x0English
      1·
      3 hours ago

      You can put up a lot of wind and solar in that time.

      Which needs a stable baseline to counteract lack of supply and/or a lot of lithium. And space.