Hacker News Reader

And without grid scale storage, which doesn't exist, solar at noon is about as useful as coal in the middle of Australia. Renewable only is a pipe dream and is distracting from the fact that we need to build nuclear plants if we want to have a planet by the end of the century.

View on HN

With solar+hydrogen you have a higher stability than nuclear. When solar process fall by additional 50%, this setup will be even cheaper than coal.

So on the one hand we have a technology that works, on the other we have a pipe dream.

I sure know which one I want to bet the future of the planet on.

Neither one's really a pipe dream anymore. Solar+wind+hydrogen is at the point where it can replace all fossil fuels.

This doesn't mean you can't have nuclear, but it's no longer necessarily.

You can do 50% renewables without any storage. The world is pretty far away from that.

Germany, Australia and California say otherwise.

I don't understand what you want to say. Germany is relatively close to 50% renewable electricity without a lot of grid scale storage.

Germany is hovering around 41% renewable electricity, but its primary energy supply is still 78% fossil fuels.

https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/germanys-energie...

41% is "fairly close" to 50%.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com