• @Maggoty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    115 months ago

    That’s because private companies are incapable of large scale engineering. They want fast profits, not stable infrastructure.

    • @frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -55 months ago

      Nuclear is not going to help that. It doesn’t synergize well with wind and solar. You want something that can scale up when wind and solar drop off. Nuclear only makes sense if you can run it at the same level all the time.

        • @frezik@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -35 months ago

          There is. Clouds come in, and all that cheap solar goes away. You want something else to ramp up. Clouds go away, solar is dumpling dirt cheap power to the grid, and those other things ramp down.

          Nuclear is not the solution to that.

          • JJROKCZ
            link
            fedilink
            English
            35 months ago

            Batteries and other power storage exist though… just run nuclear to x% percentage and y exists in battery form to cover potential solar/wind/geothermal/tidal outages.

            • @frezik@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              0
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              When you have batteries, you don’t need nuclear. You just need solar and wind.

              Edit: I’ll also point out that there are other arguments from nuclear advocates (bad ones that don’t realize where we are in the tech development) saying storage solutions aren’t ready. Estoppel much?

          • @guacupado@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            15 months ago

            Clouds come in, and all that cheap solar goes away

            I can’t believe we’re about to hit 2024 and people are still saying this.