1194
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Oct 2026
1194 points (97.6% liked)
Technology
89424 readers
4142 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Solar and wind don't render entire regions uninhabitable when something goes wrong.
Solar and wind alone can't run a grid unless there is a significant amount of battery storage.
Okay? That doesn't have anything to do with the issue.
Sorry if this is an uninformed question, but can't we just pump infinity liters of water uphill?
Sure if you have the infrastructure and topography to do so. But this adds to the cost.
The problem is everyone always compares solar alone to nuclear in this comparison it looks really good. However when you include the cost of storage, it doesn't look as good.
The analyses I've seen suggest that we will need to build at least some nuclear to achieve the fastest and cheapest decarbonization.
Its possible to build reactors that don't fail spectacularly. Just look at penslyvania with the three mile island nuclear plant or hell you could even look at fukushima. People still live around those locations.
edit: Build out more solar too because that is a great way to generate power but don't snub other things just because they aren't "perfect" from your perspective.