4 ms·

I love to dig out this old article on why "baseload" is a bullshit argument against reneawbles and surprisingly, "baseload" comes up only when it's nuclear astr

• ReflectedImage 4y ago
  Solving the climate crisis with Future Tech is nice and all, but the word "future" does have a meaning. More practically, we should we be building the last generation of nuclear reactors to cover us for the next 50 years until the Future Tech actually exists.
  • epistasis 4y ago
    At this point, the untested "future tech" is nuclear. Storage is far more reliably produced than nuclear, and its silly to pretend otherwise when we have extremely robust supply chains for storage that produce absolutely massive amounts, whereas nuclear just creeps along with failures and schedule delays and excuse after excuse after excuse. Nuclear is not a serious tech, it's barely a tech at all because it gets more expensive rather than cheaper the more we discover about it. Almost an anti-technology in fact, mostly a boondoggle to fund decrepit contractors that have killed subways and transit and all sorts of other construction in the Western world. Current lithium ion storage production is at 200-300 GWh/year, which, with daily discharge is 8-12 nuclear reactors' worth of energy. Per year. And this capacity is growing 10x every 5 years, and massively dropping costs. Every. Single. Year. Nuclear is an absolute joke compared to that.