Comment on Solar power and storage prices have dropped almost 90%

IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

• atzanteol@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  We definitely need to build more nuclear.

  source

  • Cornpop@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Agreed. 1000x. Solar alone can’t save us.

    source

    • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Nice straw man. Nobody is arguing 100% solar.

      source

      • Cornpop@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Hence why we need nuclear as well… nice fail.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • MisterD@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    And we need to do reactors with liquid fuels instead of solid fuel

    source

    • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      You realize uranium isn’t a liquid, right?

      source

      • MisterD@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        No but you can dilute it into a fluid …wikipedia.org/…/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor

        source
  • nrezcm@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    You must construct additional nuclear.

    source
• ikidd@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Solar and nuclear address completely different goals.

  source

  • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I know. Nuclear provides base load power, which can be argued is not needed any more.

    www.zdnet.com/…/why-baseload-power-is-doomed/

    source

    • V0lD@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Maybe I missed some points by skimming, but the arguments made in that article are that:

      • 1. Australian researcher agrees with his stance

      • a region had 22% of its power produced by wind at one point

      I guess the claim “it can be argued” is technically proven true, but the majority opinion I keep hearing from the electrical grid engineers in the news is the opposite

      And, well, sometimes it just simply is night, and sometimes the wind doesn’t blow. We don’t have the battery tech to run from storage alone

      But, honestly why wouldn’t we use nuclear? It’s the one power source we have without any real downsides untill ITER finally brings positive results

      source

      • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        And, well, sometimes it just simply is night, and sometimes the wind doesn’t blow.

        Do you really think this isn’t already taken into account?

        We don’t have the battery tech to run from storage alone

        Nobody is making that argument, as far as I’m aware. There are plenty of ways of storing energy, e.g. pumped hydro, that would work in conjunction with battery storage.

        But, honestly why wouldn’t we use nuclear?

        The obvious one. It’s wildly expensive when compared to renewables, and that’s before the usual nuclear build issues of cost and schedule overruns.

        source
    • Mustard@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      It can be argued but only poorly.

      source

      • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Feel free to offer corrections.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• Buffalox@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  We need nuclear because it can cover 20% for 50 years, then we are out of suitable Uranium (allegedly).

  That includes an expected undiscovered amount of twice of what has already been discovered.

  Clearly nuclear can’t solve the climate change problem alone.

  source