• Cylusthevirus@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Because it gets dark and the wind stops blowing and industry still operates when those things happen. Nuclear is not a forever solution, but a necessary stop-gap.

      • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        And where do you think all the materials for that come from? Eind turbines, solar panels and batteries require huge amounts of (rare) earth materials that need to be dug up in very -let’s say ugly- mines… lithium for example, is now the core component for most of our batteries and lithium mines are polluting as hell. If we want to have all the lithium we need for all of our storage capacity, well need to destroy beautiful places like the Atacama desert because if we don’t we won’t have enough lithium.

        • Meowoem@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          The rare in ‘rare earth’ is not related to scarcity, many of the most common elements in the crust are ‘rare earth materials’ lithium is a great example because it’s hugely abundant especially in salt water where it can be extracted at the same time as desalination - which is especially good paired with wind and solar because it can rapidly switch power usage so excess energy at peek times can be used which helps stabilise the grid, then when generation is low it can pause to conserve power. Also ideal for placement directly tied to solar where sun and saltwater are plentiful, such as the equator.

          The other good thing is that lithium is infinitely recyclable and battery tech keeps evolving to require less of it in its chemistry. Theres endless other battery technologies and energy storage methods available too, lithium is great for cars and phones because of the energy density but for grid tied storage that’s not really an issue.

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

        Storage technology isn’t there yet. Nuclear is. The only viable approach is “all of the above.” Anything less is foolishness and oil industry propaganda.

        • Relo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          50 yeas ago people couldn’t think of a future without fossile fuel. 100 years ago people thought ships would run on coal for eternity and 200 years ago or in fact up until WW2 horses did most of the work when it came to transportation.

          Things change fast. Stagnation of technology is not the norm.

        • Meowoem@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The same people who run the oil companies also run nuclear plants, billionaires love a monopoly but what they hate is local communities being able to own and run solar farms and wind turbines, they hate the idea of someone that isn’t them being able to spend a million making a profitable offshore wind farm or a raised water energy storage facility – more than anything they hate the thought of houses and businesses having PV on the roof and being able to detach evenb just in part from the mechanisms owned by them.

          • Claidheamh@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The same people who run the oil companies also run nuclear plants

            What? You keep saying this in this thread, where the hell are you getting it from?

    • Meowoem@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s not actually required at all though, thats all FUD from the big energy monopoly that hate anything that can be owned and run by people that aren’t them - there are endless options for making a stable grid using renewables and they’re all considerably cheaper, quicker to make and a lot more resilient.

      Nuclear gets pushed so hard because it protects the billionaires monopoly that’s the only reason.

      • Claidheamh@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        What are you talking about? Nuclear has been the target of a massive misinformation campaign from the fossil fuel corporations for decades. Looks like you’ve fallen for the FUD. People have been formatted by literally every form of media to think of nuclear as something dirty, dumping green glowing waste into the environment, and making fish grow extra heads.

        Countries like Germany have been closing perfectly fine NPPs because of FUD funded by their huge fossil fuel lobby. 80% of our energy is from fossils, and they have apparently successfully convinced people that we shouldn’t attack that number with every tool at our disposal. Meanwhile, we’re collectively spending literally trillions of dollars on fossil fuel subsidies every year. Is that what pushing nuclear hard looks like?