• BackupRainDancer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    “Nuclear lover” is a bit harsh. Someone mentioned batteries but another area is in actually buying emissions free energy and proving it for audits or reporting.

    An angle that needs to be considered is that any upgrades that need to happen to a power grid in order to connect (in the US) need to be paid for by the party adding to the grid. The US distribution grid is ancient and this actually incentivizes them to do nothing.

    One of the major negatives in solar and wind power is the instability of it. I think it’s overblown but is a genuine issue. Factor in the massive, massive bill the newer renewable power generator pays and it makes sense to use something more stable to recoup investment. Nuclear is then safer, capital does what it does.

    There’s also the negative that depending on the contracting for the batteries, the lessOR of the batteries might be able to “claim” the energy credits towards their zero energy claims. This is also how those other solar companies profit off installing them on your house, they take the “green energy credits” and can sell them.

    Nuclear doesn’t usually have these types of stipulations.

    Fwiw most people in the corporate sustainability push (who actually give a damn that is) think net zero is impossible without a significant nuclear push.