4 ms·

I used to think this too, until solar started to take off unexpectedly. We will need nuclear in the long run, but at the moment, I don't think massive adoption

by hliyan 11y ago

I used to think this too, until solar started to take off unexpectedly. We will need nuclear in the long run, but at the moment, I don't think massive adoption is a necessity. As for Lithium, even if Li-ion remains the best technology we have for the next ten years (which it might not be? [1]), we should be able to find better ways of mining Lithium [2], like electrolysis from seawater. After all, it's probably the most abundant metal in the universe. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Mirai https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Mirai [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium#Production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium#Production

semi-extrinsic 11y ago
No. Given how long it takes to build a nuclear powerplant, we need them right bloody now. Yes, solar is seeing fast growth right now, but it will also hit the ceiling very fast, probably around 10-15% of the average total production, due to the physical realities of power grids. Germany is the poster boy for solar, but they've installed three times as much generating capacity in the form of new coal-fired power plants as they have in solar over the past six years.
- oska 11y ago
  There is a lot of misinformation and misinterpretation of what is happening with coal in Germany since the decision to phase out nuclear. This article [1] goes into a lot of detail, with charts and figures, on what is actually happening and shows that the simplistic interpretation that you are making (and which has been repeated elsewhere quite a lot) is not true. [1] http://www.energypost.eu/energiewende-dark-side/ http://www.energypost.eu/energiewende-dark-side/
  - kuschku 11y ago
    Very interesting read, even as a German. Thanks. I did not know international media would portrait it so... wrong.
  - semi-extrinsic 11y ago
    Interesting, especially the part about the financial situation for coal power. But there is a serious weakness: it presents the false dichotomy between "keeping nuclear and coal, no more renewables" and "reducing nuclear while increasing renewables". There's no mention of the (obviously better) option 3: "reduce coal while increasing renewables, keep nuclear the same". And what I said about coal power is factually correct. Germany installed 11 GW in new coal power plants from 2011 to date. When you crunch the numbers, that gives you a production of ~80 TWh per year from the new coal plants. Now, as the article you linked points out, this has replaced old coal plants being phased out. This means their argument of "nuclear power was old and needed replacing, so we might as well just scrap it" could be equally applied to coal.
  - facepalm 11y ago
    There is really a lot of politics in that, not just economics. For example there was a decision to wind down all nuclear power plants, and coal was used for a while to compensate for that. Meanwhile, the parties in power changed and nuclear power pants are not being closed down as quickly as planned anymore.
- lispm 11y ago
  > installed three times as much generating capacity in the form of new coal-fired power plants as they have in solar over the past six years. That's wrong. Coal in Germany is stagnating and going down. There are literally dozens of fossil fuel plants for closure...
madaxe_again 11y ago
Solar is about to take a legislative beating, as the oil lobbyists have won. In the UK if you want to install a Solar array, there are no subsidies - in fact, you have to pay a levee for "taking money from oil producers". And don't forget the subsidies for oil and gas in the UK are ~20x those of renewables. But hey, as we all know, co2 is love, and "this green crap all has to go".
- josephagoss 11y ago
  It's disgusting that oil and gas can receive 20x subsidies. It's like a cruel sick joke.
  - sillygeese 11y ago
    It's just politicians and their cronies benefiting at the masses' expense, i.e. the system working as intended.
    - rosser 11y ago
      That doesn't make it stink any less.
      - sillygeese 11y ago
        Of course not. We shouldn't have governments at all, because all they do is exploit us. That's why they exist. All you need to see is that they're taking our money by force, and you can make sense of everything they do - it's all about keeping us blind to the exploitation so that they can keep on doing it. King's had "The Divine Right" to rule over everyone else, and governments have "The Social Contract", which amounts to the same thing.
- andy_boot 11y ago
  >subsidies for oil and gas in the UK are ~20x those of renewables. I'm not saying you are wrong - but can you show me your source for this?

by hliyan 11y ago

semi-extrinsic 11y ago

No. Given how long it takes to build a nuclear powerplant, we need them right bloody now. Yes, solar is seeing fast growth right now, but it will also hit the ceiling very fast, probably around 10-15% of the average total production, due to the physical realities of power grids. Germany is the poster boy for solar, but they've installed three times as much generating capacity in the form of new coal-fired power plants as they have in solar over the past six years.

oska 11y ago
There is a lot of misinformation and misinterpretation of what is happening with coal in Germany since the decision to phase out nuclear. This article [1] goes into a lot of detail, with charts and figures, on what is actually happening and shows that the simplistic interpretation that you are making (and which has been repeated elsewhere quite a lot) is not true. [1] http://www.energypost.eu/energiewende-dark-side/ http://www.energypost.eu/energiewende-dark-side/
- kuschku 11y ago
  Very interesting read, even as a German. Thanks. I did not know international media would portrait it so... wrong.
- semi-extrinsic 11y ago
  Interesting, especially the part about the financial situation for coal power. But there is a serious weakness: it presents the false dichotomy between "keeping nuclear and coal, no more renewables" and "reducing nuclear while increasing renewables". There's no mention of the (obviously better) option 3: "reduce coal while increasing renewables, keep nuclear the same". And what I said about coal power is factually correct. Germany installed 11 GW in new coal power plants from 2011 to date. When you crunch the numbers, that gives you a production of ~80 TWh per year from the new coal plants. Now, as the article you linked points out, this has replaced old coal plants being phased out. This means their argument of "nuclear power was old and needed replacing, so we might as well just scrap it" could be equally applied to coal.
- facepalm 11y ago
  There is really a lot of politics in that, not just economics. For example there was a decision to wind down all nuclear power plants, and coal was used for a while to compensate for that. Meanwhile, the parties in power changed and nuclear power pants are not being closed down as quickly as planned anymore.
lispm 11y ago
> installed three times as much generating capacity in the form of new coal-fired power plants as they have in solar over the past six years. That's wrong. Coal in Germany is stagnating and going down. There are literally dozens of fossil fuel plants for closure...

madaxe_again 11y ago

Solar is about to take a legislative beating, as the oil lobbyists have won. In the UK if you want to install a Solar array, there are no subsidies - in fact, you have to pay a levee for "taking money from oil producers". And don't forget the subsidies for oil and gas in the UK are ~20x those of renewables. But hey, as we all know, co2 is love, and "this green crap all has to go".

josephagoss 11y ago
It's disgusting that oil and gas can receive 20x subsidies. It's like a cruel sick joke.
- sillygeese 11y ago
  It's just politicians and their cronies benefiting at the masses' expense, i.e. the system working as intended.
  - rosser 11y ago
    That doesn't make it stink any less.
    - sillygeese 11y ago
      Of course not. We shouldn't have governments at all, because all they do is exploit us. That's why they exist. All you need to see is that they're taking our money by force, and you can make sense of everything they do - it's all about keeping us blind to the exploitation so that they can keep on doing it. King's had "The Divine Right" to rule over everyone else, and governments have "The Social Contract", which amounts to the same thing.
andy_boot 11y ago
>subsidies for oil and gas in the UK are ~20x those of renewables. I'm not saying you are wrong - but can you show me your source for this?