Are you sure renewables don’t require more extracted resources and more land usage per quantity of energy produced?
Comment on Anon questions our energy sector
drake@lemmy.sdf.org 6 hours agoNuclear isn’t in competition with fossil fuels, it’s in competition with renewables. Renewables are better than nuclear by pretty much every conceivable metric. So fuck nuclear power, it’s a waste of money and time.
daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 hours ago
Fact: that is a fake statement.
Nuclear is not renewables competition.
Nuclear provides a base line energy production.
Both renewables and fossils produce a variable production line.
So within a rational production scheme the choice is nuclear+renewables or fossils+renewables. As renewables by themselves cannot work. Because there is months over the year when it’s not sunny, not rainy and not windy enough, what do we do for those months? We close humanity during those months because some political dogma says so?
Smokeydope@lemmy.world 3 hours ago
Since we are talking hypotheticals, an ideal scenario would be a nearly completely renewables approach where each household is its own self contained energy production center equippef with solar arrays, wind turbines, thermoelectric generators. Various means of production. And have either propane or diesel as a backup. Most importantly a big battery array for storing energy long term during bad weather.
Most household electrical wiring is redone for DC transmission and all consumer appliances possible are run straight on DC for optimal efficency. Energy efficent heat pumps for cooling and heating. energy efficent cooking appliances like induction heaters. Electric cars that act as backup battery banks would be awesome.
Humanity simply does not “stop” because we run out of non-renewable electrical energy. We did fine enough before the industrial revolution, the Amish do fine now, backwoods countrymen do fine now, and renewables + energy efficent consumer devices have improved a bunch.