Post B1nQFheSc9qv2UT104 by bert_hubert@eupolicy.social
 (DIR) More posts by bert_hubert@eupolicy.social
 (DIR) Post #B1nQFheSc9qv2UT104 by bert_hubert@eupolicy.social
       2025-12-30T18:37:00Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @blotosmetek @mikeolson @publius are you now saying we need nuclear for rotational inertia? That is quite a stretch, you can get that in lots of other ways that do not cost dozens of billions! If you have a specific source I use that you think is biased, do let me know. You mention what the Koreans are doing, which is nice, but they are refusing to do it here, so there's not much point.
       
 (DIR) Post #B1nQFjKgMfDiFjEFRw by publius@mastodon.sdf.org
       2025-12-31T04:19:36Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @bert_hubert @blotosmetek @mikeolson "Nuclear for rotational inertia" would be absurd. But when you look at how it takes the place of :(1) generation(2) storageand (3) grid stabilization, you might begin to think that it's a better bargain than doing all of those things separately.