By the end of next year - there will be greater than 1 terawatt of solar module manufacturing capacity. Far more than any other energy source ever, including accounting for capacity factor.

Comments

• OberonSwanson@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Might be better news if the world wasn’t on fire one minute, and besieged by hurricanes the next minute.

  source

  • thefartographer@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Oh don’t be such a downer! I least we have…
    …
    Ummm…
    …
    - sobs uncontrollably -

    source

    • OberonSwanson@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      There there. Little comfort, but least you have a clever username.

      source
• Diplomjodler@feddit.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  And the nuke fanboys will still be fantasising about building a couple of thousand new nukes.

  source

  • BastingChemina@slrpnk.net ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Why not both ?

    I don’t think I’ve seen any long term scenario with only nuclear and no solar energy.

    On the other hand adding a bit of nuclear in the mix can really help to reduce the amount of solar panel needed.

    The simulation done for France show that 13% of nuclear in the grid can roughly divide by almost two the amount of solar, batteries and thermal power station needed compared to a 100% renewables energies simulation.

    rte-futursenergetiques2050.com/…/scenarios

    source

    • Gloomy@mander.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      The amount of Batterie and Solar between M0 (100% renewable) and M23 (87 % renewable and 13 % nuclear with a Fokus on solar over Wind) is almost the same tough.

      Where do you see a dividig by two?

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • MrMakabar@slrpnk.net ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    To be fair a couple thousand nukes could solve the cliamte crisis too.

    source

    • Diplomjodler@feddit.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Nothing counteracts global warming more effectively than a nuclear winter!

      source
  • Wilzax@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Battery tech isn’t at the point where solar can support us during the night and on overcast days. Nuclear is still the most efficient, reliable, and safe form of power production, and modern reactors not built near areas of great geologic activity are very unlikely to cause any kind of nuclear accident.

    source

    • mosiacmango@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Geothermal is great steady state load option that is also renewable, with no nuclear downsides. New systems use oil/gas drilling tech to dig large loops anywhere that put out power in the 30MW range.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • oyo@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Batteries are already cheaper than nuclear.

      source
    • Diplomjodler@feddit.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      The point is that it’s simply impossible to build enough nuclear reactors in time to have a meaningful impact on climate change. Even if somebody read crazy enough to put up the money for it. Which nobody is, so the whole discussion is pointless anyway.

      source

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

      There are other ways to store energy than batteries.

      source

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

    Nuclear is the future!

    No, really, if we start work today we’ll generate our first new nuclear electricity in about 25 years!

    What’s better, quickly manufactured and deployed renewable capacity every year for 25 years, or just burning coal at the same rate until we get our reactors approved, planned, constructed, certified and ready to go in 25 years?

    source

    • Deceptichum@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      The solar panels still win out both economically and environmentally.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • BastingChemina@slrpnk.net ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      What about investing billions in renewables energy, installing solar panels and wind turbines everywhere over 25 years, closing existing nuclear plants and still have one of the dirtiest electricity in Europe because we are still buying coal like there is no tomorrow ?

      This is the path chosen by Germany.

      Solar and nuclear are not competing energy, they are complementing each other and we should use both whenever it’s possible.

      I don’t understand the anti nuclear position when the real issue is fossil fuel, especially coal.

      source

      • -> View More Comments