2026-03-30 10:07 UTC
@PaavoAM @junesim63 From both a technical and a practical standpoint, that’s not correct. Solar and wind would be nearly enough with more storage. Just last week we were at 98% non-hydrocarbon production.
Either an expansion of tidal, or imports, would enable self-sufficiency.
Nuclear is too long and costly to build, and means expensive power. Small modular reactors are a mirage and undesirable.
Low consumer energy prices mean deleting gas, and no new high-priced nuclear.
Replies (2)
-
@PaavoAM@mastodon.social 2026-03-30 14:34
@BashStKid @junesim63 Yes in my country wind covers over half of the countrys total need and on best days during summer almost all of it. But then come hours and days when it's only 1-5% and that's when there needs to be something else to cover it. Renewables are a huge part of the green future but as our societies aren't decreasing the need for energy, quite the opposite there's no fossil free solution without nuclear energy.
-
@PaavoAM@mastodon.social 2026-03-30 14:48
@BashStKid @junesim63 Low consumer prices will lead to even more demand for energy.