Comment by wkat4242 - Hacker Neue

Space isn't really an issue. There's many places that are no good for building but are great for solar, like mountainsides.

Besides, if the Netherlands can have solar then Italy can too. It's much less densely populated.

And nuclear lasts 50+ years with constant maintenance, which is really expensive.

> no good for building but are great for solar, like mountainsides.

And what's the cost of building on a mountainside, and how much is maintenance?

> Besides, if the Netherlands can have solar then Italy can too

How much solar are they building in comparison to other sources?

> And nuclear lasts 50+ years with constant maintenance, which is really expensive.

Unlike solar panels built on mountainsides which are not suitable for other types of buildings?

Maintaining solar panels will be always way, way, waaay cheaper, than maintaining a nuclear reactor and disposing safely the waste.

Batteries would need to be cheaper, that is all that is needed for italy. In the south, they have sun all year around.

> Maintaining solar panels will be always way, way, waaay cheaper,

Citization needed. Actually we do not know and we are figuring this out.

Few examples:

Batteries would need to be safer, less toxic and less prone to be mined by children in Africa, also orders of magnitude more energy dense.

See how you decided to completely ignore my question. But I like that on top of that, batteries are not cheap either

See how I am still free to ignore any question you asked and answer just what I want?

Which would be: there is not really a need for stationary batteries to be expensive.

> See how I am still free to ignore any question you asked and answer just what I want?

It's a very common tactic by renewables maximalists, and I'm very familiar with it

This item has no comments currently.

Preferences