this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023
2121 points (94.3% liked)

World News

39161 readers
1954 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Blubton@feddit.nl 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

A big problem with solar and wind is that they are not as reliable as nuclear. In a worst-kaas scenario neither will produce energy because there is no sun or wind and there is no way to store enough electricity for these moments. Therefore we need a constant source that creates electricity for those moments. Of course, we do also need renewables, but nuclear is essential because it is reliable.

[–] zik@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

That's why places that use mostly renewables and no coal or nuclear often have gas fired generation which can start up in the rare cases when it's needed. These places already exist and do just fine with no nuclear.

[–] Blubton@feddit.nl 1 points 1 year ago

This may be true, but I am not convinced that it is any better than nuclear. To start up regeneration quick the gas winning needs to be on a pilot light (dutch source: https://nos.nl/l/2485108). In Groningen there are (according to the same source) 5 places on pilot light that together must produce at least 2.8 billion cubic metres of gas a year. This is quite a lot of fossil fuels, so I would rather have a nuclear power plant than this gas winning (which comes with other disadvantages as well).

[–] Claidheamh@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I'm sorry but burning methane isn't doing just fine.

[–] zik@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's in-fill which is only used when needed and it's reducing every year as more renewable sources are added.

[–] Claidheamh@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

is only used when needed

Sure, but it's still GHG emissions, "only when needed" or not. The whole point we're making is those gas generators should have been nuclear generators in the first place.

And we continue building gas and coal power plants. Why? Build nuclear plants instead.

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So it's more nuclear vs renewables and a ton of batteries. (Or other storage options)

[–] Claidheamh@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 year ago

What it really should be is nuclear plus renewables plus a ton of batteries (or other storage options) vs fossil fuels.