I can't but it's also not necessary. There are no conditions were no energy from renewables is produced. You have to cover peaks and shift electricity around a bit. The missing parts are interconnection and, dependend on price, overbuilding.
Pumped hydro, hydrogen, batteries. The solutions are readily deployable and economcally viable.
Comparing users to MAU seems disingenuous. The fediverse has ~12 million users, according to fedidb and around 1.1 million active ones.
Most of them on Mastodon.
This map underrepresents emissions from NPPs. The emissions that are assumed for nuclear are lower than everything you find in literature and are 1/5th to 1/10th of what reputable sources state. That being said, this map is otherwise a great resource and i like it very much.
I don't agree with you but either way that doesn't change the fact that nuclear is just slow, expensive and a bad idea in 2024.
Die Rechtskonservativen und die Rechtsextremen ergo "die Rechten".
Utility PV in Australia has a capacity factor of ~25%. So those six GW of PV will produce approximately the same amount of energy as the biggest nuclear reactor in Europe Olkiluoto 3 which took 18 years to build instead of 2.5.
Put as much money into the research of SMRs as you would like to waste. Meanwhile we just build a cheaper, better and more reliable system based on renewables.
This will happen with or without the nukebro hypetrain.
Unfortunately capacity is the first step, but its a step. I'll crack open a beer when it's consumption or production...
I said it before and I'll say it again, nuclear proliferation and corruption are the only real reasons to build NPPs. If you build for the climate you build renewable!
AbEr eS kÖnNTe noCH wEniGer SeiN 🤓
Maybe you should read up on the topic and not just repeat baseless falsehoods.
That would be so nice...