upvote
I support solar. Democratize energy, everyone should have the right to produce and store energy.

1) Plug-in solar and batteries are plug-n-play. This is the first step to teach everyone energy literacy and numeracy.

2) Vertical panels immediately add 3 - 4 hours. Vertical panels have zero real estate cost and no need to build costly and slow transmission infrastructure. Every building in a city can produce energy.

3) EVs to store excess energy during the day and supply power back to the grid later.

1.8 billion vehicles connect 4 billion buildings. Buildings can produce clean energy and EVs can store energy. The lowest hanging fruit is to make sure all new buildings are built to produce, and all new vehicles are EVs. New buildings can be built with vertical panels and rooftop. The easiest thing to do is change building code, thats it. Then, we can deal with the built environment.

reply
What source of energy will provide energy at night or bad weather?

I would like to note that batteries at end of life are chemical waste and have to be disposed properly.

"End of life electric vehicle batteries in China to 2060 and related resource management implications"

https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-026-03555-3

"The EOL batteries contain a wide range of toxic and hazardous materials that can leach into the soil and water, threatening human health and the environment. For example, lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF₆), a component in power batteries, hydrolyzes on contact with water to produce highly toxic hydrofluoric acid (HF). Additionally, cobalt, nickel, and organic solvents in the batteries can contaminate water and soil, leading to long-term ecological damage"

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/30072026/china-ev-battery...

reply
This particular brand of confrontational nuclear “advocacy” does not help nuclear. Please consider stopping it.
reply
It isn’t really advocacy (there’s no argument for nuclear here, just a sort of distracting non-sequitur).
reply
Stronger: This particular brand of rhetoric ("So you support X?" and little more, in response to a post that was not at all about X) is just a "gotcha" game rather than serious conversation, and doesn't belong on this site. I see it far too often, and not just on nuclear. (Also, it makes the one doing it look like a jerk, at least to me.)
reply
So you support censorship?

Just kidding, I’ve seen it more and more as well, and feel the same as you about it.

reply
Solar can be deployed in months, produce immediately. Solar is dirt cheap and continues to get cheaper. 21 - 25% efficiency is normal now and most likely we'll have tandem (silicon + peroskvite) with 45% efficiency. With each doubling of production, solar costs continue to go down. In a decade or two, maybe we'll be able to print solar like paper or textile, or spray paint on any surface. Or grow solar from microorganisms (fastest and cheapest).

A nuclear deployment takes 3 - 5 decades, costs continue to skyrocket, actually needs nuclear scientists to design and run.

Which one do you think is a better choice? If you were an investor, would you put your money on a nuclear plant and wait 3 - 5 decades for returns?

reply
It currently takes so long to deploy nuclear in the West, because the West mostly dismantled the nuclear supply chains, starting in 1990s. At that time coal and gas power plants were seen as better than nuclear power plants and no expansion of nuclear energy was expected.

For example Germany was still building new coal power plants in 2005-2007.

https://energytransition.org/2016/10/germanys-last-new-coal-...

https://us.boell.org/en/2014/06/06/german-coal-conundrum

Currently, in 2026, Germany is retiring coal power plants and replacing them with gas power plants.

https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/german-government-appro...

reply