• Hugohase@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    9 days ago

    Thats a chicken/egg peoblem. If enough renewables are build the storage follows. In a perfect world goverments would incentivice storage but in an imperfect one problems have to occure before somebody does something to solve them. Anyway, according to lazard renewables + storage are still cheaper than NPPs.

    • LoreleiSankTheShip@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      9 days ago

      Imagine this (not so) hypothetical scenario:

      Yellowstone or another supervolcano erupts and leads to a few years of volcanic winter, where there is much less sunshine. This has historical precedent, it has happened before, and while in and of itself it will impact a lot of people regardless of anything else, wouldn’t you agree it would be better to have at least some nuclear power capacity instead of relying solely on renewables?

      Sure, such a scenario is not probable, but it pays to stay safe in the case of one such event. I would say having most of our power from renewables would be best, having it supported by 10-20% or so nuclear with the possibility of increase in times of need would make our electric grids super resilient to stuff

      • Microw@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 days ago

        Nature catastrophes are the top 1 danger to nuclear energy. See Fukushima.

        And the real question here would be a comparison between risk of a nuclear accident event and a renewables-impacting climate event.