• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    51 month ago

    but at 1% of the cost, why are we still talking about nuclear

    Sure… the reactor will go 24/7 (between maintenance and refuelling down times, and will use less land

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      71 month ago

      The land thing isn’t anywhere near enough of a concern for me, especially when dual uses of land are quite feasible.

      24/7 is just about over commissioning and having storage. Build 10x as much and store what you generate. At those sorts of levels even an overcast day generates.

    • @Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In
      link
      English
      31 month ago

      Using the remaining 99% of the cost to bury batteries underground would seem reasonable.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        31 month ago

        Batteries can be containerized in modules, with a turnkey connection that remains mobile. Solar can use those containers as support structure. Hydrogen electrolyzer/fuel cells can also be built in same containers.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 month ago

        Underground construction generally isn’t cost effective. It costs way more to get dirt and rock out of the way than just building a frame upwards. There might be other reasons to do it, but you want to avoid it if possible.

        • @Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In
          link
          English
          21 month ago

          The underground suggestion was only to counter the argument of space usage.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            21 month ago

            There’s a million other ways to go. Solar on every parking lot, over every irrigation canal, and along every highway. Some farming can be done under solar panels, as well; some commercial crops prefer shade, such as strawberries.

            The US uses about 30% of its land for cows. One simple plan is that we all eat one less burger a week. Which would be a good idea, anyway.

            Land usage is so not a problem as soon as you open up the dual use possibilities.