• NJSpradlin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    22 hours ago

    Geothermal, wind, tide, hydro, solar… and then even nuclear. All ways to just create unlimited energy. But, because the elite enslave us to the status quo, through the jobs that keep it going… here we are.

      • NJSpradlin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 minutes ago

        One or two of them, or all of them individually, aren’t explicitly as competitive as existing non-renewables, sure. But together.

        Geothermal is very good option for some for reducing their electricity demand for heating and cooling their homes.

        Home solar doesn’t fully cover everyone’s electricity demand for their homes, sure, but can greatly reduce the demand for it of it doesn’t cover it outright.

            • Szyler@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              8 minutes ago

              It is if you consider the cost of the redundancy required for renewable energy to serve as base load once you cut oil, gass and coal out of the supply.

              Nuclear can cover this base load until we develop better storage systems for large scale use.

              If we had just built nuclear with the modern architecture developed in the 70’s onwards we’d be able to move away from fossile fuel FAAR more easily today, without any mjor disasters from the reactor technology from the 50’s.

            • Tja@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 hours ago

              A single one maybe not, if we standardize and scale it might work. If solar and batteries keep getting cheaper, it might not be worth it, but the current problem is that new reactors are their own unique snowflakes, making it more expensive.