this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2026
228 points (80.3% liked)
memes
22436 readers
3059 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads/AI Slop
No 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
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm not anti nuclear
Anyway so your plan is to have nuclear running to cover a fix part of the demand ("baseload"), say 60%, and then have renewables cover, depending on weather, anywhere from nothing so the grid crashes without storage or everything by themselves so the npps are useless?
And your reasoning why we can't put the same money into storage instead of npps is that your still-fictional-but-likely nuclear tech would be cheaper than the battery tech of today, an apples to oranges comparison, and you deliberatly ignore the still-fictional-but-likely battery tech that would make storage way cheaper?
Your whole argument is based on a fictional cost analysis.
Who said anything about going without storage? Come to think of it, let me ask this meta question: why do people always think in absolutes and convenient boxes?
How are NPPs useless? You don’t need so much solar that it does everything by itself if you have nuclear for baseload. Those solar panels are the things that will become useless come winter time. But yes, when there is a lot of sun, NPPs can be turned down during the day and be spun back up during the night. That’s how France does it already. And the still-fictional-but-likely nuclear tech may be even more flexible.
My argument isn’t based on any cost analysis. Where have I mentioned cost at all? I’m not arguing nuclear is going to be cheaper.
The issue is that we already don’t have enough production capacity for (Li-ion) EV batteries, we don’t have any production capacity for the still-fictional-but-likely battery tech, but we do have production capacity for NPPs.
Why would you put all your eggs in one basket and bet it all on a still-fictional-but-likely battery tech?