The next stage of the process will see companies able to bid for Government contracts with successful bids from the six going to contract award stage next summer.

Next summer is soon

  • Airazz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Renewable power is now a huge business too, naturally there are corporations which will happily lobby and shill about it. Looks like you’re doing exactly that, claiming that wind and solar is without faults and basically a miracle.

    The most basic proof of that: wind power isn’t safer. Way more people and animals are harmed by it than by nuclear.

    • R0cket_M00se@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah you gotta love the “wind and solar is all we need crowd” claiming there’s no downsides like having to invent solutions for the issue of production hours versus time of max useage. Pumped hydro, among others like heat energy storage.

      Nuclear is the only reliable form of energy for humanity’s inevitable outward expansion. I don’t believe space exploration and colonization is inherently at odds with repairing the planet. Rocket travel is a drop in the bucket compared to manufacturing, airline, and automotive pollution, and if materials science can find something mass producible that can be used for a space elevator we dont even need to use chem/nuclear to escape our own gravity well.

      We need to solve the problem of energy in a way that can be scaled and taken with us to places that don’t have wind or geothermal, or are too environmentally unsuitable for solar for whatever reason.

      Calling nuclear wealthy is hilarious, neither group has oil & gas beat, and wind/solar have both surpassed nuclear in overall business infrastructure. The reason we haven’t invented a fusion plant that can pass the Q limit is because fusion never got funded for shit, we’ve been at “fusion never” levels of funding since we began.

      • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        claiming there’s no downsides

        Compared to nuclear? Yes, no downsides. In general? It’s not perfect of course but the best option we have.

        having to invent solutions for the issue of production hours versus time of max useage

        That’s like saying “nuclear has to invent solutions for the issues of meltdowns, and getting nuclear fuel, and dealing with waste material, and dealing with extremely high risk targets, and risks of earthquakes, and risks of flooding, and the need to have extremely highly qualified operators, and extreme building costs”…. I could go on.

        Nuclear is the only reliable form of energy for humanity’s inevitable outward expansion

        Ah yes, because nuclear fissile material is more ubiquitous in the galaxy than light.

        The reason we haven’t invented a fusion plant that can pass the Q limit is because fusion never got funded for shit

        Absolute nonsense, you just made that up completely. Post a source.

        Calling nuclear wealthy is hilarious, neither group has oil & gas beat

        “Calling a billionaire wealthy is hilarious, that’s not even in the top 500 richest people”

        The nuclear industry is massively overfunded, they’ve consistently received billions in public money for years, and there’s basically nothing to show for it. It’s the carbon capture of electricity generation: cute idea, let’s keep researching it in hopes of a breakthrough, but in practice just a total waste of money at our current level of tech.

    • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Way more people and animals are harmed by it than by nuclear.

      Absolute and complete bullshit. Even if you take the very, very low estimate for the number of deaths caused by nuclear accidents such as Chernobyl, wind and nuclear have a similar number of deaths, but when it comes to “people and animals harmed”, nuclear is HUGELY more harmful, it’s not even a contest.

      Just look up all of the people with horrible health issues caused by nuclear.

      But go ahead and source your claim lmfao.

      • Airazz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Chernobyl was a freak incident and it happened fourty years ago. We don’t build reactors like that anymore. Don’t use it as an example of something that happens all the time.

        Meanwhile, wind turbines do fail, sometimes they catch on fire, sometimes while a worker is doing maintenance up top.

        Don’t get me wrong, renewable power is wonderful and solar is really catching up but it’s not a miracle and they’ll never entirely replace other energy sources. There’s always a base load that needs to be satisfied, and nuclear is the cleanest, safest way to do it. It’s even safer than lithium batteries.

        • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m not using Chernobyl as an example of anything. I’m mentioning it because a number of people died as a result of the Chernobyl disaster, therefore it has a bearing on the number of deaths caused by that source of power.

          nuclear is the cleanest, safest way to do it

          That is not true, and I have posted evidence demonstrating that it isn’t true.

          Also, IPCC says that all of our energy sources can be 100% renewable and that it’s totally viable. Sorry, but you’re not better informed on this topic than the experts. You’re no better than an anti-vaxxer with your science denial.

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

            Lol, going straight for ad hominem here, aren’t you. Yea, you’re just a shill and a naive kid who thinks that he’s objectively smarter than literally everyone. I’ve met plenty of people like you before, you’ll argue just for the sake of arguing, ignoring all facts.

            • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Lmao okay, yes, defeating every single one of your arguments logically and soundly is absolutely “going straight for ad-hominem”. You’re projecting so hard it’s genuinely very funny.