• ByteJunk@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    5 months ago

    This.

    Also, tie together more countries’ power grids to even out production and demand of renewables, and reduce the need for other backup sources.

    For a fraction of the cost of nuclear, increase the storage capacity as well. We’ve had days where the price per MWh was negative in many hours, because of excess production.

    The barriers to carbon free energy aren’t technical, they’re purely political.

    • Caveman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      5 months ago

      Yeah, back in 2010 and before nuclear was the way to go but with the incredible advancements in solar and wind it’s no longer the best option.

      Still shame on Germany for decommissioning nuclear reactors and deciding to build Nordstream 2 and burn coal as a replacement.

    • fellowmortal@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Please understand that negative prices are the market for electricity breaking down! That is not a good thing. It should mean that if you have solar panels on your roof you have to pay to participate in the national grid because you are dumping energy into the grid when it can’t use it, but special rules have been made for renewable plants. Literally, imagine a contract-to-supply for wind or solar…

      • ByteJunk@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        I understand very well the implications of the negative price, which is why I advocated NOT to spend trillions in nuclear, when issues of balancing demand and production can be solved for a fraction of what nuclear costs.