this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2023
1619 points (98.2% liked)
Technology
59106 readers
5446 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
$35 Billion dollars. That could have been used to place solar arrays and batteries on approximately 1.5 million houses. If they did that, they wouldn't need all the reactors at all. With investments in promising storage innovations, it makes more and more sense to decentralize and give power to the people. The boys at the top don't like that idea though. They want to keep you under their thumb.
You need a schedulable power source if you want to fully replace carbon. A lot of batteries with super high capacity (that may exists in the future) could stabilize solar enough, and a lot of solar arrays may give enough power, but in summers you you will be forced to throw away some of the energy, which is a big waste. And this is an hypothetical scenario, nuclear is a technology that already exists, we could have decarbonised decades ago using nuclear. -> Don't get me wrong, I don't mean that we should rely on nuclear power alone, but we should first cover the base energy load with nuclear, then use solar and wind for the rest