• Rooty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    A low carbon energy source is useless if it cannot cover peak loads, which are now being covered by fossil fuels. Years of greenie obstructionism now means that the nuclear plants that would have been built are now missing, and the solutions offered by the anti-nuclear lobby seems to be “let them have energy poverty, brownouts and outright blackouts are not our problem”. This will happen once coal and oil plants shut down, renewables alone cannot cover the demands, especially at peak load.

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

      Peaker technology is best replaced by batteries. Powerwalls and V2G has already been shown to dramatically reduce brownouts and need for Peakers. You need to educate yourself a bit. It’s not 1995 anymore.

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

        Charging a car isn’t exactly on the same scale as providing power to a large metropolitan area with heavy industries.

        There just is no viable battery storage for that scale with current technology.

          • Kalash@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Yeah, you still don’t really seem to grasp the scales here. A 400 MWh is nice for a small Australian town, but a piss in the wind for an industrial centre.

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

              You’re just wrong. Battery systems smaller than this have already paid for themselves reducing brown outs and dramatically reducing or eliminating the need for peaker plants, which are always the worst for the environment. This is only about scale and the cost of batteries has dropped dramatically just in the last few years. Again, it’s not 1995.

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

                Again, it’s not 1995.

                Keep saying that a few more times and maybe you can wish your imaginary battery technology into existance.

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

                  Facts are facts bra. The technology is there, it’s proven, and only getting better and cheaper.

    • Richard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      21
      ·
      1 year ago

      Such an absolutely brainless response. Of course renewables alone can cover the demands, and they’re our only option since nuclear energy is inherently dangerous, extremely expensive and damaging to the environment and climate due to the immense amounts of concrete required. Furthermore, grid-level storage is a made up problem with regard to renewables, we could easily cover peak demands by expanding hydroelectric pump storage systems and reservoirs, and potential new battery solutions would make this even less of an expense.

      • BloodForTheBloodGod@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Climate harm is a matter of degrees, I think.

        Why isn’t a few tons of concrete worth eliminating so many emissions?

      • Exatron@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        If you’re going to claim a response is brainless you should at least try not Maki a brainless response yourself. Nuclear isn’t inherently dangerous, and is better for the environment in the long term.

      • Willer@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        i like these comments. just have to read the first sentence to know when the blud has knocked himself out of the conversation.