this post was submitted on 14 May 2025
186 points (98.4% liked)

World News

46549 readers
1944 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] taladar@sh.itjust.works 11 points 7 hours ago (3 children)

But literally any other form of energy generation can be deployed quicker and is cheaper and most are also less centralized.

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 9 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

It's still to be determined if at a 90% renewable grid whether adding nuclear or wind/solar will be cheaper. You'll need a whole lot more energy storage the closer you get to 100% intermittent renewable, so having some reliable base load with nuclear is likely cheaper.

[–] Ton@lemmy.world 3 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Building way more renewable generation than needed at peak, plus elasticity brought by batteries (hello V2G cars) plus HVDC lines to transport power between regions will be faster and cheaper than deploying the most expensive form of power generation.

Yet, it's the power companies that don't want this. As it's threatening their business model of central generation and metering every kWh going to the consumer.

This is the reason why these discussions keep popping up. Right wing parties are fully aligned with the centralised thinking of traditional power companies.

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

I'll need substantiation on the cheaper. Batteries are expensive! And transmission loses get excessive after very long to distances.

[–] Saleh@feddit.org 1 points 1 hour ago

Denmark is a small country. Transmission losses are much lower in high voltage DC lines. Battery storages get cheaper consistently. Denmark is close to Norway, where pump storage plants exist and can be built easily.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

And you think that just because they have something to help in 30 years they'll sit there with a thumb up their ass and wait before doing anything else?

Never get involved in politics or management of any sort, thank you.

[–] Saleh@feddit.org 2 points 1 hour ago

Because resources are limited. Committing to one technology over others means binding resources that cannot be used in other technologies. And nuclear power has pretty much the highest investment per power ratio. So instead of getting 20 GW of offshore wind power in 5 years, they get 1 GW of nuclear in 20 years.

[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 8 points 6 hours ago

We can do both.