• bouh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    This article is a joke of renewable propaganda. It makes hypothesis on the worst nuclear trends, and project the renewable trends, ignoring that renewables need fossile to provide consistent output. They also question each and every analysis that pretend nuclear would be good.

    This is an anti-nuclear shit post.

    • pizzaiolo@slrpnk.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      renewables need fossile to provide consistent output

      If only we had invented energy storage!

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

        Fiction land storage does not count.

        Be specific and don’t lie with generalisations that don’t apply at scale for the grid. And don’t fan girl Lithium, it has no business case outside of extreme cases and more to the point the world does not remotely have enough.

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

        Also not even an advantage.

        France has nuclear capacity for 550TWh/yr at nameplate for a load of 420-500TWh/yr and several neighboring countries that let them use hydro for storage.

        They still produce 40-50TWh from dispatchable sources.

        If storage is impossible, then we better build more wind and solar instead of nuclear.