191
submitted 1 year ago by BrikoX@vlemmy.net to c/news@beehaw.org
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] tryptaminev@feddit.de 4 points 1 year ago

So how does it go in that equation, that you need to wait for 12 years until you have the nuclear plant built, with having 0 fossil energy replaced until then?

In the meantime you can scale Solar and Wind, where you continously can build it up. Also at much smaller costs, so you can build three times the raw power, that you could with the nuclear plant. Also you create an incentive, to not just think in terms of creating a supply that meets the demand, but also to adjust the demand to the supply, which is perfectly possible and a hardly tapped potential. Mostly because it requires the demand side to stop being comfy and actually improve their energy usage.

I agree, that we need to be effective. And it is more effective to have replaced much more energy supply in a shorter timeframe, while also getting the demand to adjust, than to wait around for 12 years, until then being able to replace the equivalent in oil or coal plants.

this post was submitted on 25 Jun 2023
191 points (100.0% liked)

World News

22057 readers
149 users here now

Breaking news from around the world.

News that is American but has an international facet may also be posted here.


Guidelines for submissions:

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.


For US News, see the US News community.


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS