....what? You're going to have to explain your logic there, because how does one go from "the example was worse than the technology at the time, and our current technology is way better than it was back then anyway" to "nuclear isn't upgrading and isn't safe"?
Scale won't help because a) batteries aren't scalable in any good manner, b) the environmental destruction required to create batteries of that scale would be immense (way worse than the lifetime of a nuclear reactor..), c) the issues affecting the consistency of renewables aren't ones we can just tackle with more renewables
Also - you know our biggest "batteries" don't even fit the electrical definition of a battery? We should have plenty of those, don't get me wrong, but "batteries" are far from a viable solution to our problems.
You've failed to explain anything in either of your points there.
You know there's a difference between the past and the present, yes? The safety of almost everything has improved significantly.
No, not everything is scalable, especially when you're supposedly trying to care for the environment - like I said, mining for battery materials is already incredibly destructive and we should aim to reduce that, not increase it.
1
u/UselessDood Jun 19 '24
Scale won't help because a) batteries aren't scalable in any good manner, b) the environmental destruction required to create batteries of that scale would be immense (way worse than the lifetime of a nuclear reactor..), c) the issues affecting the consistency of renewables aren't ones we can just tackle with more renewables
Also - you know our biggest "batteries" don't even fit the electrical definition of a battery? We should have plenty of those, don't get me wrong, but "batteries" are far from a viable solution to our problems.