Yes, of course I’ve meant it in a positive way - a way to replace coal and gas. But solar is not just positive, they are problematic when you couple them with nuclear for the simple reasons that solar is not reliable and you can’t throttle nuclear - they are like big ships, they require a lot of time to steer. Furthermore solar energy low price causes problems for nuclear higher prices. Which wouldn’t be a problem if solar was reliable and continuous (long winter nights much?). But it’s not, but you still need a reliable energy source. And so on. The pro solar panel crowd don’t understand many of these implications and go with simple “idiotic” and downvotes.
I think they don’t get that your comment is fighting the same fight by being pro solar & anti coal/gas, with the only difference being that your comment is also pro nuclear power.
Mihies@programming.dev 1 day ago
suigenerix@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Why wouldn’t solar and other renewables combined with batteries be better?
It’s very early days, yet California recently had 98 days on renewables. That started in winter.
What is it about renewables with batteries that you believe will fail, despite the mass adoption that is under way?
Why will the projected, continued decline in battery prices and advances in battery tech not occur?
Why would adjacent solutions, like the massive storage ability of vehicle-to-grid, be worse compared to nuclear?
Why are so many “in the know” getting it so wrong?
Mihies@programming.dev 1 day ago
What batteries are you referring to? Do you realize the amount of energy those batteries would have to store? Perhaps somewhen in the not so near future, but today? Go ahead and show me a western city able to store a couple of days worth of energy. More realistically a week.
suigenerix@lemmy.world 22 hours ago
Las Vegas has already achieved 97% battery supply for its needs.
Again, where is your evidence that it is not going to improve across the board, and will all fail?
“It’s not here right now,” is not even close to a convincing answer.
humanspiral@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
OP sepcifically mentioned EVs. This sector is deflationary even in US, where better value/performance cars cost less every year. More dramatic deflation in less corrupt countries. Australia home solar costs under 1/3rd of US due to different politico-social corruption levels.
EVs and home solar are a great match that permits going offgrid at substantially lower cost if an EV is parked at home during day. That same dynamic allows a society/community to power itself through solar+batteries, and EVs parked at work. It’s not a question of look at our corrupt obstructionist oligarchical monopoly state of societies for examples of lack of economic success as proof that it will forever be impossible.
catsarebadpeople@sh.itjust.works 21 hours ago
It’s not perfect so it must be bad! Hot take. Fuck off with your green energy negging. You’re a paid assassin or an idiot. Doesn’t really matter which. Good day
ByteJunk@lemmy.world 23 hours ago
The idiot digs deeper, and shows his true colours. Asinine.
ByteJunk@lemmy.world 1 day ago
No. We get exactly what his comment is about.
If he was in the renewables camp, there would be no point, in this discussion over solar, to bring up nuclear. It’s absolutely unrelated.
What he’s doing is pushing the thought into people’s heads that nuclear is a good solution, and that’s why I’m calling him out for. For being a shill.
Mihies@programming.dev 14 hours ago
And that’s your reach apparently - insulting people without anything to contribute whatsoever.
SmackemWittadic@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I’m with you on solar. We literally have a fusion reactor at the core of our solar system, so there’s no point in having ones on earth. And the more we use solar, the more it’ll be improved through research.
There’s no argument for any carbon based fuels
Mihies@programming.dev 9 hours ago
Actually energy from fusion reactors on Earth does make a lot of sense. Sadly we are advancing slowly there.