My impression is that this is a PR push, designed to avoid having to invest in renewables, and let them keep on burning gas and coal, rather than something likely to come to fruition.

    • silence7@slrpnk.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      30 days ago

      They’re talking about 5+ years on the new nuclear in these. And they haven’t done it before, so a 30% deadline slip is realistic.

      You can put up a lot of wind and solar in that time.

      • 0x0@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        30 days ago

        You can put up a lot of wind and solar in that time.

        Which needs a stable baseline to counteract lack of supply and/or a lot of lithium. And space.

        • silence7@slrpnk.netOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          29 days ago

          The existing large-scale batteries are largely lithium. There are a bunch of iron-chemistry ones and sodium-ion ones which have been deployed over the past year, with factories going up to scale them up. I’m not expecting to be limited by lithium availability for stationary batteries.