this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023
612 points (90.9% liked)

World News

39380 readers
1978 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 40 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Profitability is so much not the point here and also, there's no reason for different energy production sources (especially ones that are base power vs incidental power) to be in conflict. Do both of them.

[–] theragu40 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We don't have to like it but unfortunately profitability is by far the number one driver for...well everything. So little is accomplished by way of altruism. People are greedy. The best way to successfully incentivize climate action is for environmentally friendly actions to become the most profitable and be advertised as such.

So I agree with you that both options should be used. But I disagree that profitability is not the point. Money is always the point and always has been.

[–] steelrat 8 points 1 year ago

Price of energy is key to the success of every economy.

[–] luckyhunter 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah exactly. None of it is profitable if you can't meet instant demand changes at any time of day. Build the nukes to meet full demand needs and supplement them with "more profitable" options for redundancy.

[–] NotSoCoolWhip 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

None of this is profitable if you can meet demand power at will either.

It's just a scarcity game that those in power use to keep things ticking along.

What is infrastructure to most, is a tuned revenue machine to a very few.

The purpose of a system can be determined by its output, and it's working quite well in that aspect.

[–] luckyhunter 1 points 1 year ago

I've never had a rolling black out or brown out but we burn coal around here and there are proposals for some small nuclear sites. Yes there's some solar and wind as well but we are a net exporter of energy to the western states.

[–] veganpizza69 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

There is, actually, a conflict. Renewables are more dynamic in production. You can turn them on and off quickly, you can scale them quickly too. You can't do that with nuclear plants. Baseload is not a goal, it's a limit. That's why the nuclear energy sector is friends with the coal sector.

Example of Nuclear-Coal friendship from Poland: https://twitter.com/stepien_przemek/status/1642908210913853442

Example of Nuclear-Coal friendship from the USA: https://www.energyandpolicy.org/generation-now-inc/

A deeper understanding here: "The duck in the room - the end of baseload" https://jeromeaparis.substack.com/p/the-duck-in-the-room-the-end-of-baseload

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Baseload is not a goal, it’s a limit.

I would love to know what oil company you heard that from, since it's absolutely not true. You can both turn them off quickly (faster, in fact, than LNG or Coal), start them up quickly (sub minutes) and change production quickly. These have all been features since 1960's era reactors, and we're around 10 generations past them.

[–] assassin_aragorn 2 points 1 year ago

I think they might be referring to turning down the reactors, which I think is an actual difficulty with them. By no means however is it a reason to not use them, it just means you employ it wisely. Have it meet most of the demand, and use solar and wind and others to supplement to full demand.