• DerGottesknecht@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    What do you mean with 100% Storage?

    you would need a LOT of transmission capability that is not currently available

    can be build faster and cheaper than nuclear, doesn’t need fuel and needs to be build anyway. We get the cheapest, strongest and least dangerous grid if we invest in more renewables, storage and better transmission. And that’s something we can get done fast and start harvesting the profits in a few years.

    • WagnasT@iusearchlinux.fyi
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I mostly agree except transmission is not cheap, and further I’m not convinced transmission across a continent is even possible even with crazy high voltage DC lines which currently don’t exist. The current massive projects are going to take several years for just a few lines, it would take an insane ramp up in production to do the entire continent. While we’re working on that nuclear can be built reasonably fast without political hurdles blocking every step of the way. That’s not to downplay the need for recycling the waste which will need to be invented regardless because the waste already exists. I’m also not convinced renewables can ramp up production on a scale that would be able to replace in excess of 100% of the demand within a few years, but I guess I’ll have to look that up. Your concerns about nuclear are valid, but rebewables won’t magically solve all the problems of reliability and scale, we’re going to need a baseload and nuclear has proven for decades that it can do the job.