this post was submitted on 04 May 2024
861 points (99.2% liked)

Technology

59596 readers
4131 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] Sl00k@programming.dev 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Perhaps a bad example because most people undermine them, but China has still decided to move forward with 4 different nuclear facilities this year despite having an ABUNDANCE of solar manufacturing. If they found that decision worthwhile I would think the opposite, assuming most of the reasoning is current battery tech can't sustain dark periods at a massive scale, but I'm not an expert.

Also just saw you mentioned nuclear costs in another comment, I suggest you look at South Korea and China's cost per facility compared to the US, they're able to build and maintain facilities at about half the US does.

Literally every source I've come across has nuclear being massively more expensive than renewables + storage, at least in the West.

The market decides what to invest in in a capitalist economy and they will tend to go for the thing that makes them the most money in the shortest time possible and that's why new nuclear isn't happening much.

If you're advocating for public ownership of utilities so there's central planning and long term thinking instead of profit chasing, that's an interesting debate to have.