this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2024
497 points (99.6% liked)

Technology

59428 readers
4059 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/17558715

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] stoy@lemmy.zip 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Sigh, I have heard the economics argument for decades, and it basicially boils down to "we should have started 10 years ago", well yeah, that would have been the ideal, but today is the second best day to do it.

Untill now, no one in this thread has addresses the baseload problem.

Ok, flywheels, that is an interesting concept, depwnsing on the connection to the motor/generator and how much energy is lost in the transmission it could absolutely work.

I also wonder how scalable it would be...

You say that I am wrong, fine I can take critism, but when I just keep seeing people saying "NO" to any resonable way to remove our dependence on fossils with in a resonable timeline.

Tell me when would renewables be able to completely take over from fossil power generation, I mean in the long run (20+ years without any fossil fueld plants or nuclear plants), and run reliably even during the dark and cold winters in say northern scandinavia?

Give me a resonable idea on that.

[–] Cypher@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

A decade of building renewables would start generating power nearly immediately and would produce more energy per dollar invested even with storage attached.

Nuclear is a dead end for fools.

[–] evranch@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 months ago

I don't see how people like you miss the entire concept of "base load".

I live in a region with vast amounts of renewable energy resources. It's always windy and the sun shines almost every day. I have solar panels on my house that cover most of my DHW and a large fraction of my summer cooling load, and keep most of my appliances running.

But right now, the sun is down and the wind is flat. And I still need power. My battery storage would be depleted by morning, damaging it through overdischarge if I don't buy power from the grid instead.

And it's a lovely summer evening with no heating or cooling demand! What about midwinter, -35C and dark and snowy? Where is my power coming from on that day, after a month of days just like it?

Nuclear.