• Richard@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    22
    ·
    1 year ago

    Such an absolutely brainless response. Of course renewables alone can cover the demands, and they’re our only option since nuclear energy is inherently dangerous, extremely expensive and damaging to the environment and climate due to the immense amounts of concrete required. Furthermore, grid-level storage is a made up problem with regard to renewables, we could easily cover peak demands by expanding hydroelectric pump storage systems and reservoirs, and potential new battery solutions would make this even less of an expense.

    • Exatron@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      If you’re going to claim a response is brainless you should at least try not Maki a brainless response yourself. Nuclear isn’t inherently dangerous, and is better for the environment in the long term.

    • BloodForTheBloodGod@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Climate harm is a matter of degrees, I think.

      Why isn’t a few tons of concrete worth eliminating so many emissions?

    • Willer@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      i like these comments. just have to read the first sentence to know when the blud has knocked himself out of the conversation.