• Wanderer@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    Say your power supply is 100 low power and 150 high power demand. Giving a need of 50 difference.

    If you build Nuclear at say 80. It will give a remanding demand of 20 low power and 70 high power. But the difference remains 50. Nuclear doesn’t solve the issue of supply matching demand in anyway.

    EV’s are going to weigh a lot. Lithium will probably be the main usage in cars. But really the solution is less cars. Need trains.

    Running a country exclusively on renewables comes with its own costs in storage and emergency solutions

    I agree but I think that route will give lower cost, quicker roll out and less co2

    • tb_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      It may not reduce the delta, but we gotta cover the base load somehow. Nuclear is ideal for that job.

      • Wanderer@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        It’s not ideal as it’s more expensive than alternatives, and slower. I’m not making the decision so it doesn’t matter.

        But i will say Australia just made the decision that nuclear has no place and China built a lot of nuclear then stopped and started rolling out renewables.

        • tb_@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          I don’t think 100% renewable is the way to go, given that energy output can vary.

          And as long as any amount of fossil fuels are left in the energy supply chain, I’d rather they be replaced with nuclear. Even if it’s more expensive.

          I’m not making the decision so it doesn’t matter.

          Perhaps not directly, but assuming you live in a democracy your vote does matter.