It's far, far more expensive than renewable energy. It also takes far, far longer to build a plant. Too long to meet 2030 targets even if you started building today. And in most western democracies you wouldn't even be able to get anything done by 2040 if you also add in political processes, consultation, and design of the plant.

There's a reason the current biggest proponents of nuclear energy are people and parties who previously were open climate change deniers. Deciding to go to nuclear will give fossil fuel companies maximum time to keep doing their thing. Companies which made their existence on the back of fossil fuels, like mining companies and plant operators also love it, because it doesn't require much of a change from their current business model.

[–] someacnt_@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago (19 children)

But how do we produce enough batteries for renewable energy?

[–] Resonosity@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Redox flow, sodium ion, iron air, etc.

There are some 600+ current chemical-based battery technologies out there.

Hell for me, once sodium is cracked, that shit is so abundant that production wouldn't have many bottlenecks to get started.

[–] someacnt_@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Will Li-ion battery companies let that happen? They want profit, which means they want to keep the high battery cost.

[–] Resonosity@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Oil & Gas companies didn't want Solar, Wind, and Storage to proliferate, yet they did because of cost savings.

I think we could start to see that for these alternative-ion batteries if lithium supply ever becomes an issue. There will always be a niche that has the opportunity to grow in the economy. Just takes the right circumstances and preparation

[–] someacnt_@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

True, but gotta see. Currently these companies are so minor.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (16 replies)

load more comments (64 replies)