• meteokr@community.adiquaints.moe
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    10 months ago

    It is AN answer, but also not the only answer. Generating and moving power around is extremely complex and just seeing “Solar cheaper per Watt” and defining it as the best in all cases is silly. If you changed the axis to be size per MWh, then you would draw a totally different conclusion.

    • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      It was the answer. Now solar is so cheap that spamming panels and investing into ways to save the excess energy seems cheaper. By the time nuclear plants are done you’re going to be at least 8 years into the future. Solar panels however are directly implementable. And even cheaper now.

      • letsgocrazy@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        10 months ago

        Solar still doesn’t work at all night, no matter how cheap it gets.

        It’s not very useful for most of Northern Europe and birth America during the winter months. Even if it was free you’d still need alternatives.

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

          Yup, and you’re not going to be able to make enough batteries, and if you could, it would be prohibitively expensive.

          There are other options for energy storage, but they all have massive caveats. We’ll need something reliable as a backbone until we find a good way to store power.

          • Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            This is the issue: you can use batteries to store energy for the night during the day. Batteries that store over longer periods such as long cloudy spells and large seasonal differences are too expensive. On the other hand, on a global scale this is really mostly a concern in Northern Europe (where I happen to live).

    • gmtom@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      It’s really not even AN answer. It’s so expensive to build them, requires hoards of highly specialised people to build and operate, takes decades to build all the while were relying on fossil fuels still until it can generate power, has a bigger carbon impact than renewables due to massive amounts of concrete used in building decommission and waste storage, is more expensive per mw, and while on average safer than most types of power plant, if something unexpected happens shit goes extremely bad.

      It just has way way way too many downsides compared to wind or solar or basically any other renewable to the point its just not really worth pursuing.