Why is it always comparing solar vs nuclear. What we need to compare them against is fossil fuels. Nuclear and renewables should be used together if we want to phase out fossil fuel in a timely manner.

[–] pizzaiolo 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The two are compared because money is not infinite and there's an opportunity cost to picking either one

[–] BestBouclettes@jlai.lu 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's Dubai we're talking about here, money is infinite as far as they're concerned. The alternative to nuclear for a baseline will always be fossil fuels until we can store the surplus of renewables efficiently, which is arguably further away than SMRs.

[–] Shanedino@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

There has been some cool innovation in renewable energy storage such as pairing it with hydro and pumping water back up using access electricity during peak production.

[–] Wooki@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I love these fiction land scenarios that magically change the landscape.

[–] Shanedino@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Woah there I'm just saying it's cool not that I think it'll save the world or anything.

[–] BestBouclettes@jlai.lu 0 points 1 year ago

The innovation is there but it's not viable yet for a country, or even city wide grid. Hydro is okay but severely limited by geography, rocks up a mountain could work too but it's also limited by geography to some extent.

load more comments (46 replies)