Except that nuclear is not economically viable.
we havnt tapped into geothermal like scifi does, we have the other ones though.
cows_are_underrated@feddit.org 5 days ago
Tja@programming.dev 5 days ago
Huh? France seems to be doing OK.
cows_are_underrated@feddit.org 5 days ago
I should mention, that building new nuclear reactors is not financially a viable option.
Szyler@lemmy.world 5 days ago
It is if you consider the cost of the redundancy required for renewable energy to serve as base load one you cut oil, gass and coal out of the supply.
Nuclear can cover this base load until we develop better storage systems for large scale use.
If we had just built nuclear with the modern architecture developed in the 70’s onwards we’d be able to move away from fossile fuel FAAR more easily today, without any mjor disasters from the reactor technology from the 50’s.
Tja@programming.dev 5 days ago
A single one maybe not, if we standardize and scale it might work. If solar and batteries keep getting cheaper, it might not be worth it, but the current problem is that new reactors are their own unique snowflakes, making it more expensive.
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 5 days ago
I didn’t mention nuclear
cows_are_underrated@feddit.org 5 days ago
You didnt but the person you replied to
0x0@lemmy.zip 4 days ago
Give it the same subsidies Big Oil has then… and i’d rather have clean energy that “economically viable” dirty energy.
NJSpradlin@lemmy.world 5 days ago
One or two of them, or all of them individually, aren’t explicitly as competitive as existing non-renewables, sure. But together.
Geothermal is very good option for some for reducing their electricity demand for heating and cooling their homes.
Home solar doesn’t fully cover everyone’s electricity demand for their homes, sure, but can greatly reduce the demand for it of it doesn’t cover it outright.
rakete@feddit.org 4 days ago
Geothermal very often uses fracking, too. Difference might only be a bit higher depth it’s used in.