this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2024
664 points (69.5% liked)

Memes

45995 readers
1493 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 5) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (6 children)

Idealists and reality. Natural opposites.

Renewables are unreliable. That's a fact. Yes you have moments, days even weeks where they can deliver what is currently required. In total output. Not yet in delivers when you actually need it output.

Sure you can have 100% renewable generation for a 24hr period, but if your generation is during the day and your usage is spread into the night, you're not really covering your needs, no matter how good it looks on paper.

It is also your current usage. Now do the math and replace all fossil fuel usage with electric alternatives. Cars, buses, trucks, heating, cooking, etc. Now calculate just how much more renewables you need to cover all that in ideal circumstances.

Now do the same for windless winter days.

If we're going to step away from fossil fuels entirely, you're going to have to accept nuclear as an option. Thinking we'll manage only with renewables is a dream. While you dream, we're burning fossil fuels non-stop. Cuz that's reality.

You can have renewables with nuclear, or renewables with fossil fuels. You're actively choosing renewables with fossil fuels.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 54 points 6 months ago (1 children)

lol nuclear is really uneconommical, way too expensive and therefore really inefficient. You need 10-20 years to build a plant for energy 3 times more expensive than wind. For plants that still require mining. That produce waste we cannot store and still cannot reuse (except for one small test plant). For plants that no insurance company want to insure and energy companies dont like to build without huge government subsidies.

I know lemmy and reddit have a hard on for nuclear energy because people who dont know anything about it think its cool. But this post is ridiculous even for lemmy standards.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 6 months ago (5 children)

Nothing about nuclear energy production is good, sensible and safe! You are dependent on a finite resource, you have to put in an incredible amount of effort to keep it running. Not to mention the damage caused by a malfunction (see Fukushima and Chernobyl).

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 36 points 6 months ago (3 children)

Nuclear lobby really tries to sell us to the fact, that it's better to have control over power by a few big players. Must be terrifying to think about people creating their own power eventually.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago

Just make it public

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] -4 points 6 months ago (6 children)

Renewables fed into a fusion reactor is the best currently

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago

Yeah! Let's dig a big hole till we hit lava and then throw everything into it. :)

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 49 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Renewables are better, cheaper and more scalable. Its not even close. Look at Denmark for how it can be done.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (3 children)

Denmark looking decidedly not green this morning. It's sunny, but virtually no wind - might be like this for another week. Check the map regularly to understand why unreliable energy is actually just a way of increasing gas usage.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Yes yes. Let's continute to use energy sources which are limited in terms of available but necessary resources and cause highly problematic by-products. It has been going on so well so far. Hasn't it?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›