• Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Not even close.

    cheaper per kwh Solar is only cheaper per kWh if you take it in a vacuum. You need storage for times when solar generation isn’t sufficient alone… You know… the literal half of the day that the sun isn’t out. Solar + battery is not cheaper last I checked and won’t be for a while. Forget the “digging lithium out of the ground” since you want to bring up the next point…

    doesn’t require digging radioactive bullshit We have enough in currently accessible stockpiles for a long time… like a really long time. IIRC from current stockpiles we could last until 2100… So we’d have ~70 years to plan for either digging more or figuring out breeder reactors.

    better idea, no? No.

    • WaxedWookie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      You do understand that you can’t quickly scale up nuclear production, necessitating storage for that too, right? Wind is comparable cost to solar too, and (depending on the area), does generate through the night.

      The nuclear nonsense is pushed by the fossil fuel industry for good reason - it buys them an extra decade of being able to sell their product while people fight nuclear plants in their back yards that take years longer to build - all as we run out the clock to such a degree that we’re at the point of that narrate pivoting to “well it’s too late now - why dump fossil fuels?”

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

      There is a proof of concept to beam solar energy from the space. Airbus is working on it, that could be a revolution.