4 ms·

Solar and wind will never be enough. https://quillette.com/2019/02/27/why-renewables-cant-save-the-planet/ https://quillette.com/2019/02/27/why-renewables-cant

• jadell 8y ago
  Is your point that we should stop building any solar or wind? Because if that is not your point, I don't understand what you're trying to say.
  • acidburnNSA 8y ago
    The point of the article is that unreliable energy like wind and solar with 35% and 25% capacity factors is extremely challenging to scale beyond those numbers. Large-scale low-carbon systems that are 24/7 reliable regardless of how windy or sunny it is may be more effective. Lots of people are promoting 50/50 mixes of intermittent/unreliable renewables + nuclear. The author of the article thinks the renewables are problematic and our money would be better spent just going for 24/7 reliable clean energy sources.
• Arn_Thor 8y ago
  The whole takeaway from that is "it's difficult and I, the author, doesn't think it'll work because it's difficult". With lots of hand-picked examples of shortcomings of implementation loosely collected into a semicoherent justification for nuclear energy. I'm all for nuclear energy, if it can be done safely. (The cost might be too high for it to be commercially viable, but if it's worth doing the state can subsidize for the good of humanity). But that blog post does not succeed in making any sort of case for why solar and wind won't be enough.
  • yostrovs 8y ago
    Nuclear is safe. It's safer than coal, solar, wind, and pretty much every other form of energy. And cleaner too. But it's "nuclear" and "radiation," which means half the public enters a state of paranoia. Do investigate the relative dangers of energy production.
    • door5 8y ago
      The Fukushima disaster almost got to the point where they had to evacuate Tokyo. I support nuclear power, but to say that it is without risks and the public is just irrational is disingenuous.
      • yostrovs 8y ago
        Nobody has nor anyone will die from Fukushima. Tokyo wasn't evacuated. I didn't say nuclear is without risks, but it is safer than other methods of producing lots of electricity
        • trissi 8y ago
          This is just plain wrong. Although only one person has died from radiation YET, over 2000 died during/from evacuation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster_casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa...
          • yostrovs 8y ago
            It's obviously poor evacuation or, more likely, the evacuation was unnecessary. The fault is of bureaucrats not nuclear technology.
            • door5 8y ago
              Well unfortunately we live in a world of imperfect bureaucrats instead of perfect ones. If someone tells you there's a 1% chance that if you don't evacuate millions of people would be exposed to dangerous radiation, would you give the order? 10%? 50%? these are not easy questions
        • door5 8y ago
          I agree, I support nuclear power, but their are legitimate reasons to be wary of it other than just ignorance. Being anti-nuclear isn't just a case of being uneducated, some intelligent people who understand the technology are anti-nuclear as well
• adrianN 8y ago
  Solar and wind and batteries, or solar and wind and a very large grid will be enough.
• obtaniumstool 8y ago
  A right-wing mouthpiece is criticizing renewable energy? Crazy.