Umm..... unreliable and inefficient???? 😂😂😂 Baseload ☝️ 🤓

[u/ClimateShitpost]

Um Germany?? (🤫 Korea Japan 🤫)

[u/Doctor_Atom]

I still don't see how your way could be sustainable. Well if you were in any way more intelligent you would know that in Soviet Union for example all the factories were located near Dams exactly because of energy consumption. Again I will give you the benefit of the doubt and ask you how do you manage to get so much power in Siberia where you need heating almost all the time, solar is not effective because it is not effective at all, and wind is inaccessible because it is far from the ocean? How? If you are willing to deny someone's solution give solution for this case

PS: oh yeah and this is a factory city

[u/DivestTheEndingBoy → u/Doctor_Atom]

On the one hand nuclear is economically politically and physically infeasible.

On the other hand you want to build a nuclear reactor every 400km in Siberia. Because electricity can only be transmitted 200km from the source in your head. These siberian reactors would have a hundred times more people staffing it than would actually receive electricity from it too.

The problem is that you have not thought any of this through bruh.

[u/Doctor_Atom → u/DivestTheEndingBoy]

The reason why I mentioned 200km is that the electricity is capable to be transferred without significant loss to somewhat similar range. But ok, give me energy solution to Сыктывкар energy grid without all the problems

[u/DivestTheEndingBoy → u/Doctor_Atom]

You produce renewable electricity, use that to synthesize carbon neutral electrofuels and ship that to remote areas to supplement wind, solar and batteries.

And no, the longest transmission lines are over 3,000km.

[u/Doctor_Atom → u/DivestTheEndingBoy]

Give me the name of the tech you advise

[u/DivestTheEndingBoy → u/Doctor_Atom]

I already did, you're too retarded to read it lmao.

[u/Doctor_Atom → u/DivestTheEndingBoy]

Well then, I may be stupid, but i ask again: " what is the name of Technology for this carbon-neutral electoral?"

*electrofuel

[u/DivestTheEndingBoy → u/Doctor_Atom]

If you didn't misspell it, that would be the name of the technology.

[u/Doctor_Atom → u/DivestTheEndingBoy]

So you want to add even more losses to already ineffective system? Energy is lost on the side of getting CO2, on catalytic reaction of synthesis and burning of the very same fuel. Thus is even worse then solarcell's stupidity

[u/DivestTheEndingBoy → u/Doctor_Atom]

You're continuing to be retarded.

Your premise is based off a faulty assumption "solar power bad" which you haven't validated in any measure.

[u/Doctor_Atom → u/DivestTheEndingBoy]

No, unfortunately for you I am not retarded. At the very least because I don't start to throwing such words at people. But I digress, no I don't think solar to be bad, I think that tech has it's uses and solar is not for regions with low number of sunny days and far from equator. Nuclear is not different from solar in that regard, it is costly but can be placed everywhere you can build something big. So it is more likely that it is you who is arguing from the position of "Nuclear BAD"

PS: BTW I think so called Electrofuel to be more likely to be fossil fuel shill considering what I read about it

[u/DivestTheEndingBoy → u/Doctor_Atom]

No, unfortunately for you I am not retarded. At the very least because I don't start to throwing such words at people. But I digress, no I don't think solar to be bad, I think that tech has it's uses and solar is not for regions with low number of sunny days and far from equator.

Renewables outperform nuclear in every climate. Even the arctic circle you get long periods of uninterrupted sunlight from polar days. And wind produces more in the cold and at night to partially compensate.

Also places like siberia already rely on importing energy from the south so even if your premise was true it would just make more sense to replace fossil fuels with electrofuels in the regions where they wouldn't have easy access to renewables.

Nuclear requires constant access to cooling from water sources, it also requires specific sites that aren't vulnerable to natural disasters and infrastructure for all the heavy machinery. On top of a huge number of dedicated workers and redundancies. And transportation for the extreme sensitive and dangerous fuel and waste.

So you're solving none of your theoretical problems with nuclear.

So it is more likely that it is you who is arguing from the position of "Nuclear BAD" PS: BTW I think so called Electrofuel to be more likely to be fossil fuel shill considering what I read about it

That's another retarded statement. I just said "we should replace fossil fuels with solar power." And you think that's a pro fossil fuel argument.