[lawn]

It's just the fact that renewables aren't enough (since it's not always windy or sunny) and storage just isn't cheap or plentiful enough. They're great in many ways, but they alone won't provide enough power and stability.

So you're left with water power (which is only applicable in few areas and they destroy the nature), coal/oil/gas (which are much worse for the environment) and nuclear energy.

Nuclear might not solve everything itself either, but it's definitely part of the solution.

[funnym0nk3y]

Which is a myth. Renewables can in fact supply most requirements if they are coupled with battery storage. Then the price would be cheaper than nuclear still.

Also, natural gas is much much better than coal for the environment. And more responsive too so dark and calm times can be handled as well.

So, why are we not doing it? Lobbyism, lock in, politics, nimby.

[scuderiaseb]

Batteries are the most expensive parts on EVs, they're heavy, require rare-earth metals and they wear out. So not an ideal solution.

Would be pretty cool to have the EV batteries on cars hooked up to the electric infrastructure and handle the offset and also charging them when there is too much power in the grid.

[hattmall]

I always liked the idea of rapidly swappable batteries, like pulling into a gas station. Then they could be charged / stored in centralized locations which act as very large batteries for the grid. Keep batteries at 90% or even less and use that amount to absorb or push energy to the grid.

[chneu]

Battery recycling is a thing

[energy123]

> It's just the fact that renewables aren't enough (since it's not always windy or sunny) and storage just isn't cheap or plentiful enough

Often repeated but untrue. There have been studies that compare the total cost including all storage and transmission requirements and found that nuclear is still much more expensive.