• AA5B@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Thanks. I like to think I’m an advocate for the environment but disagree with both the statement and the intent.

    Nuclear fission has some nice properties we could use, but as an ideal. However the industry has also demonstrated it to be expensive and too long to build. It’s not practical

    Renewables have some weaknesses we don’t entirely know how to fill yet. Storage is in infancy: great for stabilization but still trying to grow. However we’re not at the point where those weaknesses matter yet. The fastest and cheapest approach is to build out renewables and storage as much as possible, while continuing to develop more scalable storage or Fusion, or figure out how to make fission practical again, or simply how to minimize use of gas peaker plants

    How high a percentage of renewables can we get, with current storage technology and still have a reliable grid? Let’s find out, plus that’s the amount of time where we need to decide on a more complete answer. We’re (US) not even close to that point, and easily have more than a decade at current rates before we do.

    Edit: another answer is we no longer have time for nuclear. Given the history of how long it takes to build nuclear power plants, and our current emissions/climate change, we can’t afford to wait the decades it would take to build those out. Renewables can make an impact immediately

    • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      I mostly agree but it’s also important to look at updating the grid so power can be moved around using high voltage DC transmission.

      We’ve got reliable solar in the Southern US, and massive potential for wind offshore and in the prairie states. If we can route power to where it’s needed that decreases the need to store it.