3 ms·
Why not just skip nuclear then and go straight for solar which is the safest: https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/sa
by threeseed 2y ago
Why not just skip nuclear then and go straight for solar which is the safest:
https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
Also happens to be by far the cheapest.
- throwaway2037 2y agoFor power production, I agree, but you need batteries to be able to replace carbon or nuclear energy sources. Honestly, I don't know about the cost of adding batteries to a major solar installation.
- threeseed 2y agoSolar and batteries is much cheaper than nuclear.
- ericd 2y agoThe intermittency is really bad/hard to deal with unless you have a large geographic distribution with long distance transmission that can handle that level of power. Even if you can handle weeklong cloudy stints, winter is especially rough due to shorter and less intense sun with much longer shadows potentially knocking out whole strings. Right now our home array gets maybe 4-6 hours of reasonably good generation per day, and it’s simultaneously the highest amount of load we see all year, due to heating needs. We could try to overpanel so that winter load is met, and overcast generation is more sufficient, but it’s still challenging and would need an extreme amount of energy storage and land.