this post was submitted on 29 Oct 2023
444 points (98.7% liked)

Technology

59347 readers
5045 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
444
Solar power expected to dominate electricity generation by 2050—even without more ambitious climate policies (techxplore.com)
submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
50 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Solar power expected to dominate electricity generation by 2050—even without more ambitious climate policies::In pursuit of the ambitious goal of reaching net-zero emissions, nations worldwide must expand their use of clean energy sources. In the case of solar energy, this change may already be upon us.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There’s no way I’d get behind investing billions of dollars in a nuclear power plant - there’s just too much risk.

So you prefer coal? Gas? Hydro isn't that ecofriendly either. Solar and wind are cute but unstable, you need a stable source to keep the grid going - and/or batteries, which aren't that green either.

Perhaps if all the oil subsidies went to nuclear instead, a lot of way safer reactors would leave the drawing board. Nuclear didn't stop evolving at Chernobyl you know.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Nuclear does not help. It has nothing to do with safety issues (perceived or otherwise), and everything to do with economics. It has not solved its cost issues, and probably won't.

Solar and wind want to be mixed with some other tech that can ramp up when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing. Nuclear wants to stay at a steady pace all day long. They don't work together. What will happen is to increase the times when solar and wind are overproducing and have to be shut off, thereby cutting into their economic advantages.

Fortunately, we don't have to go all out with solar and wind. Getting to 95% solar and wind with a modest amount of storage capacity is fully achievable in less than a decade. Gas/coal plants would be turned on for a tiny fraction of the year. Getting that last 5% will take longer, but just getting that far will be a huge change.

There is no reasonable plan that gets us nuclear in less than a decade. SMRs are not going to be in full production before then. Traditional nuclear plants have taken at least 10 years to build after serious budget and schedule overruns. If you had all the permits signed and ready to go today, you would not be able to do it.

Now, I do hope we start putting SMRs in some less traditional places, like ships.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Now, I do hope we start putting SMRs in some less traditional places, like ships.

Interesting...