1382
A Reminder (thelemmy.club)
submitted 3 weeks ago by to c/politicalmemes@lemmy.ca
389 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 22 points 3 weeks ago* (6 children)

I've been saying the exact same thing for decades. Imagine where we'd be today if we had embraced solar and wind 50 years ago?

It's all about boiling water anyway. Who cares how we boil it? Shouldn't we boil it the cheapest, easiest way possible? The sun's beating down, the wind is blowing, it's easier to harvest that, than drilling holes a mile into the Earth.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 15 points 3 weeks ago

    Imagine where we'd be today if, during the oil crisis of the 70s, we started working towards reducing our dependency on oil with intention.

    They all say it'd take 30 years. Ok, so if we started this endeavor after 9/11 we'd be in the home stretch.

    If we started this in 1980...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 3 weeks ago

    Funny you say it's all about boiling water when neither solar nor wind power generation requires boiling water. Actually, even the forms of solar that do involve water typically don't boil it but just heat it to disperse that heat in the house. The only form that involves boiling water that I'm aware of is a large mirror array that reflects light over a large area towards one target, which could be a boiler.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    It’s all about boiling water anyway. Who cares how we boil it?

    Then you want nuclear power. When established, it's cheap, reliable and scalable. And the only real solution to the growing demand.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 weeks ago*

    Nuclears lifetime cost per KwH isn't cheap, and that's the main reason it hasn't been mass implemented.

    The upfront cost is simply too much for the amount of energy it produces.*

    But solar and wind are the two cheapest sources of energy available, we need more energy stores to go fully solar and wind. We don't really have enough mountains, to rely fully on hydro energy by pumping water up a hill with excess energy - But it's a start, Sweden is minting money on this strategy.

    Battery technology however seems to be evolving rapidly at the moment, there's a serious hope we'll end up with batteries as base loaders in two decades - One big issue, is how to ensure no need for a way larger energy grid capacity than necessary, but people are working on ways to introduce battery farms locally at wind and solar farms. So they'd pass the excess energy over there, rather than through the grid

    *My information might be outdated, as I'm not aware if the SMRs if proven capable, are cheaper today than the calculations I've seen my mate do for a bachelor projects of economics just short of a decade ago

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 3 weeks ago

    Imagine where we’d be today if we had embraced solar and wind 50 years ago? I don't want to break your imagination, but you "the US" are stuck in a loop. One step forward, two steps back.

    Columbine shooting was 27years ago and nothing was done. Except a "Pray For" on social network. Don't expect too much from your country.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent