You know renewables aren't even the same thing as nuclear right? renewables aren't consistent and it's currently not possible to store the renewables anywhere.

We already have over-capacity of renewables.

Spending money on more doesn't help when there's no where to put that energy.

[–] YtA4QCam2A9j7EfTgHrH@infosec.pub 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I’m curious how you think adding nukes have an advantage here. You understand that nukes are not easily shut down? If we have a problem with an over abundance of energy, adding nukes to the grid only makes that problem worse.

[–] ShadowRam@fedia.io 0 points 4 months ago

No. Nukes make up the reliable baseload 24h/day

Have you any idea how a modern day grid functions?

The only other thing that can provide a reliable baseload 24h/day is hydro, which in upon itself is high $$$ to implement and has its own environmental issues.

You should familiarize yourself with the complexities of grid management.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHFZVn38dTM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66YRCjkxIcg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1BMWczn7JM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7G4ipM2qjfw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwkNTwWJP5k

[–] frezik@midwest.social 1 points 4 months ago

... it's currently not possible to store the renewables anywhere

Every time someone argues this, it's immediately obvious they haven't actually paid attention how the storage market has been progressing.

Next, you'll probably talk about problems with lithium, as if it's the only storage technology.