• taladar@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It isn’t but it has all the same downsides as fossil fuels in terms of being dependent on some countries for fuel imports, extraction being extremely environmentally damaging, limited supply,…

    • Domkat@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      It is a limited resource we dig out of the ground in countries we don’t want to be depending on, because to do it in our own countries is too dirty for us. Then we use this bound energy and convert it into heat we release into the atmosphere. The only thing missing for being technically “fossil” is that it’s originated from organic matter.

      Short from that, it definitively classifies as not renewable, not sustainable, dangerous, not climate neutral, expensive, antquiated idea. And in the sense of being an antiquated idea at least, it is “still fossil”.

      • Contend6248@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It is not fossil, but i agree that we should switch over to use the term renewable instead, because that’s the goal.

    • jman6495@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      It is not, but if you spout lied loud enough some people believe you.

        • jman6495@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          The levelised cost doesn’t take into account the need to offset intermittence, which is the big fucking problem that the entire population of Germany seems to be ignoring.

          • Lotec4@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Ah yes you don’t have the exact same problem with nuclear because energy usage never fluctuates. But even if it would takes 10 times more money to store solar energy it still would be cheaper than nuclear.

            • jman6495@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Rare earths for batteries are a bottleneck, especially if you want to electrify transport too.