cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/17558715

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
0 points

Standardisation will bring down the cost and time of building a powerplant.

I don’t think it is fair to compare the cost of nuclear against the cost of renewable power since they will fullfill different roles.

Renewables are great at dynamic demand, nuclear is great at base demand.

Hydro power has been shown to be quite harmful to local fish dammaging the eco system, but yes, some hydro should absolutely be used.

But renewables still can’t cut it for base demand.

I see nuclear powerplants as being a drop-in replacement for coal, oil and gas powerplats, buying us time to develop renewables further while also developing better and more efficient tech.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

Oh so the costs will drop in 10…20 years? That’s too late to help.

You are straight up refusing to acknowledge that baseload can be provided by other means and isn’t actually an issue.

Building flywheels is cheap. They last practically forever. They don’t produce toxic waste.

You are wrong. The politicians and corporate interests pushing this are wrong.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points
*

Sigh, I have heard the economics argument for decades, and it basicially boils down to “we should have started 10 years ago”, well yeah, that would have been the ideal, but today is the second best day to do it.

Untill now, no one in this thread has addresses the baseload problem.

Ok, flywheels, that is an interesting concept, depwnsing on the connection to the motor/generator and how much energy is lost in the transmission it could absolutely work.

I also wonder how scalable it would be…

You say that I am wrong, fine I can take critism, but when I just keep seeing people saying “NO” to any resonable way to remove our dependence on fossils with in a resonable timeline.

Tell me when would renewables be able to completely take over from fossil power generation, I mean in the long run (20+ years without any fossil fueld plants or nuclear plants), and run reliably even during the dark and cold winters in say northern scandinavia?

Give me a resonable idea on that.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

A decade of building renewables would start generating power nearly immediately and would produce more energy per dollar invested even with storage attached.

Nuclear is a dead end for fools.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Technology

!technology@lemmy.world

Create post

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


Community stats

  • 17K

    Monthly active users

  • 10K

    Posts

  • 466K

    Comments