• aprilmay@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    Nuclear is the only one that can actually satisfy base load demand, we don’t have enough batteries in the world to make up for solar and wind. Nuclear is also the safest.

    • weeeeum@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      Another issue is that solar panels only last 5 to 10 years and they will need to be replaced and we do not have the infrastructure required to properly recycle them. There is going to be a large bill to foot when they start dropping like flies, though, to be fair nuclear has a much high upfront cost.

      • poVoq@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Another issue is that solar panels only last 5 to 10 years

        This is completely false. There are solar-panels that are still in operation after 30 years easily.

        These figures usually come from commercial operations where it is cheaper to replace them with new ones when they drop some percentage of efficiency. Basically 20 year old panels only have 80% of the original efficiency, so in some places where space is premium the new panels pay for themselves and thus is it economical to replace the old ones after 10 years or so.

    • Steeve@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Nuclear is safer than solar and wind? That doesn’t sound right