If we must have an eyesore, it may as well be a useful one.
this post was submitted on 14 May 2026
80 points (96.5% liked)
Technology
84662 readers
3724 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Or a solar farm, so it doesn’t have to be an eyesore either.
If it’s concentrating solar, those things are literally an eyesore. Shit’s bright.
I wouldn't want to live next to one, but they're cool as shit to fly over. When I fly from the east coast to LA, at some point when I'm over Nevada I'll be able to look out the window and see what looks like a bright star shining in broad daylight, out in the desert in the distance. After thinking about it for a while I decided it could really only be one thing, that's a concentrated solar plant. It's truly impressive how far away you can see it from.
But only he first time.
If one is opposed by 53% and the other is opposed by 71%, a title suggesting that either is “popular” is a bit deceptive.
Yes, please stop building both of those things.
It's too late for Nuclear the drawbacks just don't outweigh the benefits anymore, we should have gone nuclear 50 years ago, now it makes sense to go straight to renewables.
I'm not against nuclear but it just doesn't make sense to build new nuclear China doesn't have any of the excuses pro-nuclear blame (NIMBYs/OSHA/etc) yet they aren't investing in nuclear.
Well we need both. We can't power the world 100% off renewables because we don't inave a global power distribution network.
Why not?
We have batteries, geothermal, hydro & wind.
There are already countries that are 100% renewable, without a global grid.
| Country | Renewable % | Rest of mix |
|---|---|---|
| Bhutan | ~100% | Negligible fossil backup; nearly all hydro — RatedPower |
| Albania | ~100% | Small fossil gas imports during drought years; solar growing to 9% of capacity — RatedPower |
| Paraguay | ~100% | Negligible; exports large surplus hydro to Brazil & Argentina — RatedPower |
| Iceland | ~99% | ~1% oil/gas peaking; geothermal + hydro dominant — Our World in Data |
| Costa Rica | ~99% | ~1% diesel backup generation — Our World in Data |
| Nepal | ~99% | ~1% fossil fuel; imports some coal-based power from India during dry season — RatedPower |
| Norway | ~98% | ~1% fossil gas, ~1% other; minor imports during low-hydro periods — Our World in Data |
Yeah that's my point. It's all very well Norway being able to produce vast amounts of electricity but how do you transfer that to Japan or Australia? You can't because there isn't a global power distribution network you can't take electricity from any arbitrary point on the planet and deliver it to any other arbitrary point on the planet and until we develop such an interconnected system we're going to have to need independent power generation systems some of which won't be renewable.
The technology is sound and the drawbacks are massively overblown by the fossil fuel lobby. But Old style monolithic nuclear doesn't make any economic sense in the modern world. The regulatory system in most western countries plus mechanical complexity doesn't allow for it to be built in any reasonable timeframe.
SMR's might make a decent dent in decentralized grid situations tbh. Otherwise it's going to be everyone holding out for fusion to magically get its ass into gear.
Otherwise it’s going to be everyone holding out for fusion to magically get its ass into gear.
Or y'know using renewable, China built/claims to have built 430 GW of renewables in 2025, solar can be deployed nearly anywhere and unlike SMR doesn't produce nuclear waste that you somehow have to safely despose of from your remote off grid location
as they should be
Still don't want a Nuclear power plant either. Nobody ever seems to mention where the waste will go 🤔 I'd rather renewables
Nobody ever seems to mention where the waste will go
Because it's a solved problem. Only conspiracy theories think it's hard problem