Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Darnell Clayton :verified: (darnell@one.darnell.one)'s status on Saturday, 07-Mar-2026 07:34:43 JST Darnell Clayton :verified:

   Ignore the title. This article is states that the world is too reliant on oil & gas, especially nations where producing your own (via drilling or fracking) is illegal or discouraged via excessive taxes.

   👉🏾 #Trump has been right about oil all along https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/5769651-us-energy-independence-strategy/

   While the article demands nations ignore #GlobalWarming scientists, a better alternative is to heavily invest in nuclear energy & upgrading the electric grid. This would benefit the environment, economy & national security.

   • Embed this notice
     Darnell Clayton :verified: (darnell@one.darnell.one)'s status on Saturday, 07-Mar-2026 07:53:37 JST Darnell Clayton :verified:

     in reply to

     • schnedan

     @schnedan Small nuclear reactors would be nice, but I think that it would take decades to make them commercially feasible, let alone practical.

     As far as alternatives go, I do not see wind or solar power as feasible alternatives, as it is difficult to “scale up” power generation if demand increases (usually gas is used to fill in the gap during peak demands—at least in the US).

     I would be loathed to go back to coal. But the world needs a better way to generate energy en masse.

   • Embed this notice
     schnedan (schnedan@social.tchncs.de)'s status on Saturday, 07-Mar-2026 07:53:39 JST schnedan

     in reply to

     @darnell nuclear its not an option. Current estimations are from 50-100 years fuel depending on the usage

     Also nuclear is intensive expensive. And its unsafe - even the most modern plants (none of it in the US!) still have immense risks

     nurclar plants are also not Environment friendly. They are just a slightly better than gas

     And watch german: a plant which has run for 25 years (and then was a wreck!) is now diassembled for 30 years and very much not finished!

     And small reactors like advertised? They are less efficient than big ones and consume more raw material - so you also get more nuclear waste! Thats math of grade 5-6 (the ratio of surface to volume) - pretty simple and easy. You do not need to be a scientist to know: small reactors are just startup bullshit to get investor money.

   • Embed this notice
     Darnell Clayton :verified: (darnell@one.darnell.one)'s status on Saturday, 07-Mar-2026 08:20:15 JST Darnell Clayton :verified:

     in reply to

     • schnedan

     @schnedan I think batteries could easily alleviate peak demands for residential & commercial areas (homes, office buildings, etcetera).

     I am doubtful when it comes to major factories (auto, military, heavy machinery, space, etcetera) or the greedy #AI companies that consume way too much electricity (they are increasing becoming a massive problem in America 🇺🇸!).

     The world needs to come up with an inexpensive & practice alternative soon, as using fossil fuels is not wise in the long term.

   • Embed this notice
     schnedan (schnedan@social.tchncs.de)'s status on Saturday, 07-Mar-2026 08:20:18 JST schnedan

     in reply to

     @darnell huge batteries can fill the gaps much better than gas.

     Scientists have calculated and published it for many years now: Europa can supply itself fine with wind, solar, water, ...

     there are many ideas. China just these days has finished a gigantic air pressure storage facility.

     in France there is a interesting wind to H2 project...

     like coal and nuclear heating up rivers we now build huge heat pumps to get energy out of the rivers (which cools them also...)

     fusion reactors might also come, but the realistic outlook is at least 40-50 years due unsolved problems. And the costs will be high.

     Last year a calculation circulated: if we had more solar and wind installed already + power lines for distribution elec. power in Germany could be 20-25% cheaper! With existing technology.

   • Embed this notice
     Darnell Clayton :verified: (darnell@one.darnell.one)'s status on Saturday, 07-Mar-2026 08:50:43 JST Darnell Clayton :verified:

     in reply to

     • Weird Socks

     @ohmu Wind & solar are great if energy demands are stable, but neither can handle peak demands: https://itif.org/publications/2024/09/30/why-wind-and-solar-need-natural-gas-realistic-approach-to-variability/

     It is a known problem, which is why it will be nearly impossible to phase out gas as an option over the next decades.

     Nuclear (at least in the medium term) is a realistic option, & has proven to meet peek demands in the past: http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/five-reasons-the-clean-energy-transition-needs-nuclear-power

     The issue is major factories & AI data centers. Those alone demand far more energy than residential neighborhoods.

   • Embed this notice
     Weird Socks (ohmu@social.seattle.wa.us)'s status on Saturday, 07-Mar-2026 08:50:44 JST Weird Socks

     in reply to

     @darnell
     Nuclear, as I recall, can't easily increase or decrease production either, so I'm not sure where you're going with that reason to build more nukes.
     Wind, if over built, scales up just fine in that, unlike nukes, one can safely have wind turbines sit sidle. Same with solar.

     As you said, the thing in the center of it all seems to be transmission.