[rayiner]

> But people don't get as emotional about the resources required to build windmills (so long as it's not in my backyard) as they do about nuclear. And once a windmill or a dam or a solar farm has been built, there's a belief that there's no ongoing environmental damage. Whereas nuclear (and coal and gas) require ongoing resource extraction.

But you need massive amounts of battery storage to actually power a grid with windmills and solar plants (unless you have a bunch of coal and nuclear providing baseload power anyway). And batteries are consumables which require intensive mining.

[imtringued]

Why coal or nuclear? Baseload is incompatible with renewables. During peak production of renewables, coal and nuclear can't simply shut down. They are too slow. What happens is that they have to keep running but sell their electricity at a huge loss. Producing energy when you need it the least is bad economics. It's just that simple.

[JudgeWapner]

you may need massive batteries now, but there are many ways that grids can adapt to this: refrigerators could have a thermal battery that stores excess ice, for instance. same with A/C. home appliances such as dish washers or laundry can be tied to the smart grid and only come on when there is power. same with EV's. The grid can flex a lot more than it currently is.

[nickelcitymario]

I agree completely.