Besides, if the Netherlands can have solar then Italy can too. It's much less densely populated.
And nuclear lasts 50+ years with constant maintenance, which is really expensive.
And what's the cost of building on a mountainside, and how much is maintenance?
> Besides, if the Netherlands can have solar then Italy can too
How much solar are they building in comparison to other sources?
> And nuclear lasts 50+ years with constant maintenance, which is really expensive.
Unlike solar panels built on mountainsides which are not suitable for other types of buildings?
Batteries would need to be cheaper, that is all that is needed for italy. In the south, they have sun all year around.
Which would be: there is not really a need for stationary batteries to be expensive.
It's a very common tactic by renewables maximalists, and I'm very familiar with it
"And what's the cost of building on a mountainside, and how much is maintenance?"
Why should I feel it as my duty to answer that specific question to you? Seriously curious.
So the conversation, in context, is literally this:
---
Someone: we should build panels on mountainsides
Me: how much more expensive will building and maintaining them will be?
You: Maintaining solar panels will be always way, way, waaay cheaper than maintaining nuclear. Also batteries will need to become cheaper
Me: Erm... That doesn't answer my question, and on top of that you're admitting batteries are not cheap either
---
But, again, this is on par with what I expect in such discussions
Citization needed. Actually we do not know and we are figuring this out.
Few examples:
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpJKM65tsCo
- https://www.msn.com/en-us/video/weather/worlds-largest-float...
Batteries would need to be safer, less toxic and less prone to be mined by children in Africa, also orders of magnitude more energy dense.
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2023/02/01/1152893...