this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2024
661 points (69.6% liked)

Memes

45619 readers
1018 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
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -4 points 4 months ago (2 children)

You know renewables aren't even the same thing as nuclear right? renewables aren't consistent and it's currently not possible to store the renewables anywhere.

We already have over-capacity of renewables.

Spending money on more doesn't help when there's no where to put that energy.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I’m curious how you think adding nukes have an advantage here. You understand that nukes are not easily shut down? If we have a problem with an over abundance of energy, adding nukes to the grid only makes that problem worse.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago

No. Nukes make up the reliable baseload 24h/day

Have you any idea how a modern day grid functions?

The only other thing that can provide a reliable baseload 24h/day is hydro, which in upon itself is high $$$ to implement and has its own environmental issues.

You should familiarize yourself with the complexities of grid management.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHFZVn38dTM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66YRCjkxIcg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1BMWczn7JM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7G4ipM2qjfw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwkNTwWJP5k

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

... it's currently not possible to store the renewables anywhere

Every time someone argues this, it's immediately obvious they haven't actually paid attention how the storage market has been progressing.

Next, you'll probably talk about problems with lithium, as if it's the only storage technology.