3 ms·

Guy is a pro-nuclear activist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Shellenberger#Position_on_renewable_energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Shellenber

Guy is a pro-nuclear activist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Shellenberger#Position_on_renewable_energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Shellenberger#Position... Doesn’t mean he is a sellout, but certainly not neutral.

ThomPete 8y ago
And neither a lobbyist unless that definition has lost all meaning.
- starbeast 8y ago
  Well, he has started several lobbying companies and been a lobbyist for a number of paying clients, so I think that the meaning of the word 'lobbyist' is still safe.
  - ThomPete 8y ago
    Can you name some of his current clients that have interest in making solar sound bad?
    - starbeast 8y ago
      I only just found out about him. Was only looking him up because you said that anyone who did could see he wasn't a lobbyist. Found out he was a lobbyist. Can you tell me his current client list, since you know so much about him? Then I will go and check it. Twice.
      - ThomPete 8y ago
        I didn't say he wasn't a lobbyist I said he wasn't a lobbyist the way it was being used originally in this thread. You are being disingenuous now. You can simply google Michael shellenberger and you won't get lobbyist as the first thing. Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-7DIv3AU1o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-7DIv3AU1o If you are actually interested which I am sure you aren't actually.
GuB-42 8y ago
Both nuclear and solar are good energy sources with almost opposite characteristics. Solar is good for small scale and it is highly variable. Nuclear works better on a large scale and is very stable. Is there a way to make them coexist in a way that doesn't need fossil fuel and where both technology are used to their advantage?
- pfdietz 8y ago
  They actually don't coexist very well. That's because they are both inflexible, although in different ways, and the grid has a limited "inflexibility budget". Nuclear depends on being able to sell power most of the time in order to make enough money to amortize its large capital and fixed operating costs. But solar chews this up, destroying the market a good chunk of the time (longer if some short term storage is added). Even if solar (or solar+wind) are not covering demand all the time, they will be able to crash the price often enough to destroy nuclear's business case.
  - GuB-42 8y ago
    So basically, unless you have enough spots for hydro, you need fossil fuel to cover renewables. That's German policy. Lots of renewables backed by coal. No more investment into nuclear. I know there are some countries that burn trash and plants quite successfully but I'm not sure it can be done world scale. There are some outliers like geothermal, tidal forces, battery storage but these are even smaller scale examples.

ThomPete 8y ago

And neither a lobbyist unless that definition has lost all meaning.

starbeast 8y ago
Well, he has started several lobbying companies and been a lobbyist for a number of paying clients, so I think that the meaning of the word 'lobbyist' is still safe.
- ThomPete 8y ago
  Can you name some of his current clients that have interest in making solar sound bad?
  - starbeast 8y ago
    I only just found out about him. Was only looking him up because you said that anyone who did could see he wasn't a lobbyist. Found out he was a lobbyist. Can you tell me his current client list, since you know so much about him? Then I will go and check it. Twice.
    - ThomPete 8y ago
      I didn't say he wasn't a lobbyist I said he wasn't a lobbyist the way it was being used originally in this thread. You are being disingenuous now. You can simply google Michael shellenberger and you won't get lobbyist as the first thing. Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-7DIv3AU1o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-7DIv3AU1o If you are actually interested which I am sure you aren't actually.

GuB-42 8y ago

Both nuclear and solar are good energy sources with almost opposite characteristics. Solar is good for small scale and it is highly variable. Nuclear works better on a large scale and is very stable. Is there a way to make them coexist in a way that doesn't need fossil fuel and where both technology are used to their advantage?

pfdietz 8y ago
They actually don't coexist very well. That's because they are both inflexible, although in different ways, and the grid has a limited "inflexibility budget". Nuclear depends on being able to sell power most of the time in order to make enough money to amortize its large capital and fixed operating costs. But solar chews this up, destroying the market a good chunk of the time (longer if some short term storage is added). Even if solar (or solar+wind) are not covering demand all the time, they will be able to crash the price often enough to destroy nuclear's business case.
- GuB-42 8y ago
  So basically, unless you have enough spots for hydro, you need fossil fuel to cover renewables. That's German policy. Lots of renewables backed by coal. No more investment into nuclear. I know there are some countries that burn trash and plants quite successfully but I'm not sure it can be done world scale. There are some outliers like geothermal, tidal forces, battery storage but these are even smaller scale examples.