• Crashumbc@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    4 months ago

    No, because until we solve the storage issues with electricity. You need a reliable baseline power source in the grid. Solar has 0% cost effectiveness at night. Nuclear is 100 times more environmentally friendly than coal. Even with the long term waste storage issues.

    • bufalo1973@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      Hydroelectric plants, batteries, generation on site, wave power, geothermal, … There are lots of ways to reduce the need of non renewable energy.

    • frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      We’ve basically solved the storage issues through about eighty different methods that have various applicability in different situations. They just need to be scaled up at this point.

      It’s actually better. No traditional power plant can match demand exactly, and large amounts of power are wasted as a result. A wind+solar+storage solution can match demand very close. This means we don’t need to replace every GWh of coal and gas with a GWh of renewable. The lack of wasted power takes off a pretty big chunk.