this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2026
229 points (80.4% liked)

memes

22489 readers
2337 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/Ads/AI SlopNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Captain_Baka@feddit.org 13 points 2 weeks ago (23 children)

Solar+battery is not an actual thing. We're talking society scale here, not remote cabin.

https://www.pv-magazine.de/2026/08/13/batteriespeicher-mit-rund-500-megawattstunden-kapazitaet-in-sachsen-anhalt-eingeweiht/

Germany opened a new battery storage just this week. It has so much capacity that it can power a city like Leipzig over a night completely. And there are plans to upgrade it from 500 megawatthours to 800 megawatthours before 2026 ends. That's not just remote cabin scale to me.

Hydro, although great in many ways, causes immense ecological devastation and is not suitable for all places.

Okay, here i gotta agree with you.

Nuclear also has issues but a mix of wind+solar on a base of hydro+nuclear is probably the ideal.

"Issues". Yeah. The deadly waste nuclear plants produce is just a minor "issue". And I'm not even talking about safety in general (Chernobyl, Fukushima, Three Mile Island).

[–] mirshafie@europe.pub -5 points 2 weeks ago (17 children)

I'm sure batteries will play an important role in the future, but it's not significant today and I don't see any indication of this changing rapidly in a meaningful way. I'd love to be wrong though.

Regarding the issues with nuclear power, the ecological impact is far better than hydro and health impact/deaths is also significantly better. I'm not trying to badmouth hydro here, but I think it's important to be fair and acknowledge that on those two issues (ecological impact, human health) nuclear has a better track record.

[–] Hellgruen@lemmy.zip 3 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

Like Fukushima, three miles island or Tschernobyl?

[–] mirshafie@europe.pub -3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Yes, like those. Your three examples show how benign nuclear power is, factoting in the absolute worst of circumstances and most ridiculous levels of incompetence.

[–] jagermo@feddit.org 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] mirshafie@europe.pub -1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Maybe you should do your own homework before linking Wikipedia at me. Nuclear is safer than hydro in terms of human casualties per energy produced as well as per land mass destroyed, and if you want to make a counter-argument or add any other variable the burden of proof is on you.

[–] jagermo@feddit.org 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] mirshafie@europe.pub 2 points 2 weeks ago
Energy source Deaths/TWh
Brown coal 32.72
Coal 24.62
Oil 18.43
Biomass 4.63
Gas 2.82
Hydropower 1.30
Wind 0.04
Nuclear 0.03
Solar 0.02
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (14 replies)
load more comments (19 replies)