Technology
Which posts fit here?
Anything that is at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.
Post guidelines
[Opinion] prefix
Opinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title.
Rules
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original link
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
Companion communities
!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.
view the rest of the comments
No one ever warned us that our energy needs have been climbing steadily for decades, and we need to stop being afraid of nuclear power? Really?
What rock have you been hiding under?
Nuclear and solar have competing problems. Nuclear is a baseload generator. It can't ramp up or down fast enough to meet the daily demand curve; it needs a steady, stable load, 24/7. The steadier and stabler the load, the better. If the load drops off overnight, nuclear has to dial back its continuous output to match that trough. And again: It can't ramp up and down fast enough to match demand, so it just has to stay at the lower "trough" level, with the remainder made up by various types of "peaker" plants.
To make nuclear as efficient at possible, we need to drive consumption to that trough. We have to increase overnight demand as high as possible, to minimize our reliance on inefficient peaker plants.
Now, look at solar. Solar stops generating overnight. Solar can't possibly meet overnight demand without storage, and grid-scale storage solutions are fundamentally limited. To make solar as effective and efficient as possible, we have to move as much demand to daylight hours as possible, where it can be met directly by solar generation, without storage.
The two technologies require opposing demand incentives. Making one more efficient necessarily makes the other less. Whichever choice we make here, the other one is relegated to a limited, auxiliary role in generation, and can never reach its full potential.
I literally just explained that.
No, you didn't. You were literally arguing for a binary choice.
I literally explained that the economic incentives necessary to maximize the potential of one were completely opposite the incentives necessary for the other.
Again: nuclear needs daytime loads driven to off-peak hours. The difference between maximum demand and minimum demand needs to be lowered as much as possible, because nuclear can't be quickly ramped up and down to match demand. That means increasing overnight demand: Lowering off-peak pricing for large industrial consumers.
Solar needs minimum night time demand, and maximum daytime demand. It needs to drive consumers to daytime hours. Raising prices for overnight consumption, reducing them during the day.
The two require opposite, incompatible pricing strategies to maximize their efficiency potential.
Whichever one we choose as a primary, we drive the other to an inefficient auxiliary role.