this post was submitted on 28 Dec 2023
946 points (97.8% liked)

Technology

60052 readers
2968 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] GabberPiet@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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.

[โ€“] frezik@midwest.social 1 points 11 months 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.