• bric@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago, but the second best time is today. We can’t let what we should have done stop us from doing what should be done.

    And for other sources, wind and solar are great sources of energy that should be a supplement, but sometimes the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine, and we don’t currently have the battery technology to store energy on the scale to handle those fluctuations. We need a stable backup, and nuclear is by far the best clean and stable energy source.

    • abraxas@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      and we don’t currently have the battery technology to store energy on the scale to handle those fluctuations

      We kinda do, though. It’s really new, but there are a few battery technologies that claim they can currently store enough power to defend building them and making solar or wind be the base load. At a lower cost per lifetime kwh than nuclear.

    • NoiseColor@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Another person with the incredible wisdom to tell me the is no sun during the night. Thank you sir!

      I’ll make it quick: Reducing carbon emissions is urgent. Building nuclear plants takes time, is expensive. There is no capacity to build enough to offset any carbon, not to mention building them produces carbon emissions. Plus many are even scheduled to be closed.

      Building something that will make a difference 20 years from now is smart, but if it comes at the expense of what is urgent today, it is very very dumb.

      • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Exactly. This person is talking about planting trees and waiting 20 years?

        If you’re hot today you don’t plant a tree, you put up a temporary shade (like a tent). Just nailing plywood roof to four posts is better than waiting 20 years for a frigging tree to grow.

        People complaining about “the current technology” of solar, windmills, and batteries? Prices per MW are dropping so fast, it won’t even matter soon. Battery tech is only old because we didn’t have a lot of power to store. I bet we have better batteries before the decade it will take to build a single nuclear plant.

        • bric@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          we have better batteries before the decade it will take to build a single nuclear plant.

          That is quite the gamble though. You’re so sure that we’ll be able to develop a new technology and deploy it on a global scale within the next 20 years, that we shouldn’t even bother with the one clean solution that we know works? Not only that, you’re assuming a technology we don’t have yet will be better for the environment, despite all of our current battery tech being awful for the environment.

          That’s not like putting up a tent, that’s like saying we shouldn’t plant a tree because someone is probably going to invent an instant tree service, so we should just wait. Like, maybe someone does invent instant trees, but if it doesn’t happen in 20 years we’re gonna feel really dumb

      • bric@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Solar not working during the night is going to keep being a relevant point until we have the capability to manage it, your sarcasm doesn’t do anything to refute that point. There are plenty of cool ways that scientists and engineers are working on solving those problems with better energy storage, but it’s all still in the experimental stages, and until I see build out timelines for energy storage on national scales, all of the variable output power solutions will be nonstarters for fossil fuel replacement. You say that we can’t wait 20 years for nuclear reactors, but we also can’t wait 20 years to figure out how to build a big battery. We don’t even know what the carbon emissions or time costs of whatever we decide on will be, but we do know that working nuclear reactors are a thing today.

        I’m not against solar or wind, I have solar panels on my house right now, but it has only reduced my reliance on the fossil fuel grid, it’s nowhere close to replacing it

        Plus many are even scheduled to be closed.

        Then don’t! I kind of see your point about not building new reactors, even if I disagree, but what purpose could closing existing plants possibly have? How is that going to save carbon and reduce fossil fuels??

      • buzziebee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Energy needs are only going to keep rising. Just build both FFS. Wind and solar is often built by private companies on their own initiative so with the right incentives the market can just go and build them. Government’s can put money towards nuclear so that we don’t need to have this same stupid tired argument in 20 years that we’ve been having for the last 20. It’s completely different industries and technical skills so it’s not as if doing one detracts from the other. Just start fucking building them.