1147
Solar Panels Are Now Producing So Much Power That They’re Leaving Nuclear Plants in the Dust: "Solar is now the engine of the power transition." (futurism.com)
submitted 1 week ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
411 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 1 week ago (9 children)

For the places that have enough land and environmental conditions suitable for wind/solar, that is true.

Again, who doesn't have this access?

In remote communities, just getting the materials for a wind farm there is incredibly difficult

Remote communities don't have the kind of energy demand that nuclear power fulfills. Nevermind how it's always going to be more expensive to build a nuclear generator than a big fan connected to a dynamo.

It’s not a universal solution

It doesn't need to be, when the bulk of what we're trying to replace is coal and natural gas.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (4 children)

    I agree with this; I think the "universal" argument and subsequent infighting is propped up by the oil lobby to slow us down. I just think it's important to highlight how efficient nuclear is. We should be using both good tools to solve this and part of that is knowing how good both are so they're not unnecessarily ignored.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (3 children)

    That argument holds for existing proven tech like large nuclear and solar, but convincing governments to invest in unproven and unlikly tech is a great way to prevent actual transition to occur at all. They sop up cash and give governments reasons to build nothing now, or eventually build expensive tiny demonstration systems that do not effect the overall fossil fuel market. That list would include things like small modular reactors, hydrogen power, fusion, etc.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago* (2 children)

    i am very divided over SMRs, but large traditional reactors have been proven many times over, and in any case investing in unproven tech (by any government but the US) is what led solar to be this good now in the first place

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (3 children)

    Again, who doesn't have this access?

    There are communities in northern Ontario that are only accessibly by airplane ~6 months of the year, and those 6 months also have very low amounts of sunlight. They're not quite north enough to be completely dark all day, but they only get a few hours of useable light per day in the winter.

    This means that a) solar is less effective in the winter, and b) if there is damage to a wind turbine blade in the winter, they may not be able to get a replacement until spring.

    Remote communities don't have the kind of energy demand that nuclear power fulfills

    Each reactor cell produces about 1MW, which is about enough to power a small town of about 1,000 people. They can also be air-lifted meaning if it needs to be replaced during the winter, that is still possible.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago

    SMRs will be neat if they actually work, but there is no demostration that they can be remotely economically feasible. Even considering carbon emissions, it would be cheaper and more effective to improve the carbon footprint of the main power grid by a tiny fraction of a percent and then just give those small northern communities modern fossil fuel plants, maybe supplemented with renewables over time.

    For large northern communities, grid connections are going to be the eventual solution either way.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent