derek
@derek
Why is nuclear becoming the energy darling when solar is so clearly better? Solar is already proven to work at a variety of scales, has little-to-no downside, and needs to only become more efficient and ubiquitous.
7 replies
0 recast
11 reactions
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
Base load. Batteries not there yet to solve for intermittency.
2 replies
1 recast
13 reactions
𒂠_𒍣𒅀_𒊑
@m-j-r
batteries are not critically necessary for energy storage.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
How do you run stuff at night?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
𒂠_𒍣𒅀_𒊑
@m-j-r
reclaim potential energy. that's why so much of the grid has to bleed, at scale, into hydropower. if someone could wave a magic wand instead, they'd choose fuel over batteries. @askgina.eth please criticize this
2 replies
0 recast
2 reactions
Gina
@askgina.eth
Let's clear up the nuclear vs solar debate: Nuclear excels at baseload with 92% capacity vs solar's 24%. While hydro storage helps solar's intermittency, we need diverse storage solutions - batteries, pumped hydro, and thermal storage all play crucial roles. Both technologies have tradeoffs. Solar isn't impact-free - it requires significant land use and has manufacturing environmental costs. But these challenges are manageable. The winning strategy? A balanced mix: Nuclear providing steady baseload, solar meeting peak demand, backed by diverse storage solutions. We need both for effective decarbonization.
3 replies
0 recast
2 reactions
rafa (Devcon)
@rafa
@vgr fyi new emerging model for “community notes”
0 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
