• Sockenklaus
    link
    fedilink
    English
    71 year ago

    They’re bike-shedding and blocking a major stepping stone to a coal, petrol and gas free future for the sake of idealism.

    I really don’t get this “nuclear as stepping stone” argument. Nuclear power plants take up to ten years to build. Also (at least here in Germany) nuclear power was expensive as hell and was heavily subsidized.

    We have technology to replace coal and gas: Wind, solar, geothermal, etc. Why bother with nuclear and the waste we can’t store properly…?

    • @SpacetimeMachine@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      41 year ago

      Because none of those (except hydro and geothermal, but those are both extremely location dependent) will deal with the baseload power generation we need. And don’t just say we will make more batteries, lithium is already getting more expensive, and there may be global shortages in the next few years.

      • Sockenklaus
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Because none of those (except hydro and geothermal, but those are both extremely location dependent) will deal with the baseload power generation we need.

        Is this the problem though? I mean: The sun is shining somewhere at all times and the wind is blowing somewhere at all times. Energy is being produced. The problem is either storing it (okay, batteries are expensive, I get it) or better: distributing it.

        In Germany we have the problem that we are producing a surplus of wind energy in the north but currently we are not able to distribute the energy into the south of Germany which results in needing gas power plants in the south while at the same time shutting down wind generators in the north. This is obviously bad.

        Upgrading our grid would solve this problem and would vastly reduce our need for gas energy. This is costly but is far from impossible.

        • brianorca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Until we got a worldwide grid and cheap superconductor distribution, there will be gaps in coverage if you rely on just solar and wind. Of course there are many times when we have too much supply, but it’s not all the time.

      • @gmtom@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -21 year ago

        I swear you lot saw one 15 minute video made by some 17 year old about how nuclear is safe and now you just spout the same 3 or points over and over again without any critical understanding.

        • @kartonrealista@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          41 year ago

          I love how this person made a good argument about energy storage and you just responded with speculation and an insult, not actually addressing the point. If it’s the same 3 points, you should be able to perfectly counter their argument without resorting to an ad hominem attack.

              • @gmtom@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                -21 year ago

                Well for one he’s implying chemical batteries are the only way to store energy, which is disingenuous and not a good argument, pumped storage is a proven, relatively cheap and widely known technology. and then the whole “BaSeLoAd” argument which is just literally just a bullshit buzzword the fossil fuel industry uses to try and make renewables seem less reliable.

                So please wont you forgive me for not engaging the guy spewing bad faith arguments and ff propaganda.