• Hugohase@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Renewables and storage is what is gonna happen, you can argue against that as much as you want. Growth of renewables is exponential, growth of nuclear is nonexistent.

    • Clarke @lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I swear to God you’re going to kill me with an aneurysm. It’s only non-existent because of dumbasses like you. Like facts I also do not give a single fuck about your feelings. We are at a tipping point. We cannot scale renewable production to the point we would need to scale it to In a short enough time for them to be a viable solution alone. Therefore we need to continue to implement renewables while also replacing the most egregious CO2 contributors such as coal fired plants with reactors.

      • Hugohase@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Its nonexistent because its expensive and impractical. Every cent spent for nuclear is a wasted cent because you would get twice the power from renewables. LCOE.

        • Honytawk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          What do you not get about the world not being able to produce enough renewables to switch over completely yet?

          You can’t just throw money against a problem and hope that it is fixed.

          Nuclear is a necessary stepping stone until we go to full 100% renewables

          • Hugohase@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            You get it wrong, the world is not able to build enough nuclear. Sometime In the next 18 months the world will have the capacity to produce one TW of solar panels per year. Thats around 50 times the capacity of the nuclear reactors that have been built in the best year of the nuclear buildout. Which means around 8 to 9 times the amount of electricity.
            So yeah… and we are talking about the best year…

      • Rooty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Give it up man, I’ve had clashes with renewabots, and they are adamant that we can run the entire grid on tinker toys and batteries.

        • Clarke @lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The sad part is they’re not wrong they’re just 80 to 100 years out of scope. The theory is there it’s the capacity to produce and the inability to store that kills it. Also I know I’m not convincing him. The point of comment threads like this is for the people who are uninformed and undecided as of yet.