▲ 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 eicker@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world 411 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] Fmstrat@lemmy.world 1 point 1 week ago (3 children) I.. don't think you are thinking this through. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 1 week ago (2 children) That's how it's done all over the place though. Sure, you can probably find some niche but in general I bet electric transport is better. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Fmstrat@lemmy.world 1 point 6 days ago (1 child) The entire global military aparatas, from mobile headquarters, in-country bases, and submarines, is hardly a niche. And no, that's also not how it's done all over the world, that's how it's done in modern western countries. SMRs would work very well in rocky or rainforest regions, or areas where speed of deployment is more important (kick starting a region pre-solar, or brownout coverage, for instance). Dont get me wrong, I'm making this point because SMRs have a place. I do believe solar should be the vast, vast majority of global energy production until something better comes along. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 6 days ago Well, the military have already figured it out it seems. And compared to the rest of the world it's niche IMO. For "poor countries", solar + batteries is better than classic nuclear, so why build SMRs that are just much more expensive and take ages to build compared to solar (except in some niche places)? We know how to do solar, transporting electricity etc. SMRs not so much, and they will be more expensive too. I just see absolutely no positive side for it for regular use. The nightmare having nuclear stuff all over the place is just an extra horror. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 1 week ago (2 children) That's how it's done all over the place though. Sure, you can probably find some niche but in general I bet electric transport is better. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Fmstrat@lemmy.world 1 point 6 days ago (1 child) The entire global military aparatas, from mobile headquarters, in-country bases, and submarines, is hardly a niche. And no, that's also not how it's done all over the world, that's how it's done in modern western countries. SMRs would work very well in rocky or rainforest regions, or areas where speed of deployment is more important (kick starting a region pre-solar, or brownout coverage, for instance). Dont get me wrong, I'm making this point because SMRs have a place. I do believe solar should be the vast, vast majority of global energy production until something better comes along. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 6 days ago Well, the military have already figured it out it seems. And compared to the rest of the world it's niche IMO. For "poor countries", solar + batteries is better than classic nuclear, so why build SMRs that are just much more expensive and take ages to build compared to solar (except in some niche places)? We know how to do solar, transporting electricity etc. SMRs not so much, and they will be more expensive too. I just see absolutely no positive side for it for regular use. The nightmare having nuclear stuff all over the place is just an extra horror. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Fmstrat@lemmy.world 1 point 6 days ago (1 child) The entire global military aparatas, from mobile headquarters, in-country bases, and submarines, is hardly a niche. And no, that's also not how it's done all over the world, that's how it's done in modern western countries. SMRs would work very well in rocky or rainforest regions, or areas where speed of deployment is more important (kick starting a region pre-solar, or brownout coverage, for instance). Dont get me wrong, I'm making this point because SMRs have a place. I do believe solar should be the vast, vast majority of global energy production until something better comes along. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 6 days ago Well, the military have already figured it out it seems. And compared to the rest of the world it's niche IMO. For "poor countries", solar + batteries is better than classic nuclear, so why build SMRs that are just much more expensive and take ages to build compared to solar (except in some niche places)? We know how to do solar, transporting electricity etc. SMRs not so much, and they will be more expensive too. I just see absolutely no positive side for it for regular use. The nightmare having nuclear stuff all over the place is just an extra horror. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 6 days ago Well, the military have already figured it out it seems. And compared to the rest of the world it's niche IMO. For "poor countries", solar + batteries is better than classic nuclear, so why build SMRs that are just much more expensive and take ages to build compared to solar (except in some niche places)? We know how to do solar, transporting electricity etc. SMRs not so much, and they will be more expensive too. I just see absolutely no positive side for it for regular use. The nightmare having nuclear stuff all over the place is just an extra horror. permalink fedilink source parent