• GabberPiet@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think most of the technologies you mention are currently still too expensive, can’t be used everywhere or don’t make sense to be used at a large scale. E.g. for pumped hydro you need height differences. Concrete blocks on pullies sound like you need a lot of space for only a small amount of energy (I didn’t do the maths, this is just my feeling, so correct me if I’m wrong).

    About nuclear energy: in the article I saw that it accounts for 18% of the US electricity production. That’s half of the 40% emissions-free part. So for sure we cannot reach the targets without nuclear energy. My opinion is that we should keep using it and keep investigating it further, just as we should keep investigating new electricity storage technologies.

    • frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Some of those technologies are only awaiting mass production. Economies of scale are all that’s needed, not any further breakthroughs in the lab.

      The part of that carbon-free total that isn’t nuclear or hydro has almost all been installed on the last decade. It got deployed fast and is only accelerating.