• huginn@feddit.it
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    I’m pro nuclear as well but we absolutely can maintain this level of energy consumption on renewables alone.

    The question is cost and risk - I’m for diversification of our grid which includes nuclear.

    But it is getting to the point where renewables with backups will be cheaper than coal. That’s absolutely something you can run the entire grid off of. You can balance storage requirements with excess production capacity that gets shuttered over the summer etc etc

    • surph_ninja@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      The backup is nuclear.

      I don’t really care what it costs. We’re trying to save the habitability of the planet. Damn the cost.

      • frezik@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        OK, then we just deploy a whole lot of storage capacity as fast as we can to support solar and wind. Nuclear only makes sense if it’s cheaper than that, and it’s not.

          • frezik@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            Not quite sure which way you’re pointing. Nuclear is ridiculously expensive up front. It has to run for a long time at 100% to make any kind of economic sense.