3 ms·
The case against wind and solar is that it only works when it is windy or sunny. At least Nuclear is consistent.
by gadders 4mo ago
The case against wind and solar is that it only works when it is windy or sunny. At least Nuclear is consistent.
- SideburnsOfDoom 4mo ago> The case against wind and solar is that it only works when it is windy or sunny. It is 2026 and "solar" can for a while now be read as "solar with battery storage". Similar, grid-level storage for any other intermittent power generation method. We all know this, you included. This tired and childish talking point that "solar only works when it is sunny" is boring and increasingly at odds with observed reality of these power systems as they are now rapidly being built out.
- gadders 4mo agoYou think Solar + Batteries is equivalent to a nuclear power plant? What would the footprint be for equivalent solar power production?
- SideburnsOfDoom 4mo agoAlready answered by parent https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48477998 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48477998 Not equivalent, more power and faster.
- gadders 4mo agoYeah, but he's wrong? Solar + battery requires 50-70x more land than the equivalent nuclear plant, according to google.
- SideburnsOfDoom 4mo agoYou think that he's wrong about the same money getting more ROI if invested in Solar + battery because ... "it needs more land"? This is not just incorrect, it's nonsensical, non-sequitur. These comments with perpetually moving goalposts are not serious.
- gadders 4mo agoThis was the question you chose to respond to: You think Solar + Batteries is equivalent to a nuclear power plant? What would the footprint be for equivalent solar power production? I'm not sure how me saying "50-70x more area" is a non-sequitur.
- SideburnsOfDoom 4mo ago> The question that I asked is an irrelevant derailing, but I'm not sure how it is a non-sequitur. OK buddy, you do you.
- NopIdoN 4mo agoThankfully the sun still rises most days. And the winds ye gods the winds