nytimes.com
www.nytimes.com

My impression is that this is a PR push, designed to avoid having to invest in renewables, and let them keep on burning gas and coal, rather than something likely to come to fruition.

  • 0x0English
    3·
    1 month ago

    It also takes a long time to deliver

    Not that much. Do remember there’s a lot of oil money pouring into FUDing about nuclear.

    • silence7@slrpnk.netOPEnglish
      31·
      1 month ago

      They’re talking about 5+ years on the new nuclear in these. And they haven’t done it before, so a 30% deadline slip is realistic.

      You can put up a lot of wind and solar in that time.

      • 0x0English
        3·
        1 month ago

        You can put up a lot of wind and solar in that time.

        Which needs a stable baseline to counteract lack of supply and/or a lot of lithium. And space.

        • silence7@slrpnk.netOPEnglish
          1·
          1 month ago

          The existing large-scale batteries are largely lithium. There are a bunch of iron-chemistry ones and sodium-ion ones which have been deployed over the past year, with factories going up to scale them up. I’m not expecting to be limited by lithium availability for stationary batteries.