4 ms·

You'd be surprised how much anti-nuclear activists would disagree with your second point. I'm sure I know a couple that would rather watch the world burn than v

You'd be surprised how much anti-nuclear activists would disagree with your second point. I'm sure I know a couple that would rather watch the world burn than vote for someone that will build a single reactor. I think once an issue like that becomes a left/right black/white thing all logic just goes straight out the window. You can't even say the word nuclear without hearing a cacophony of statements about the price of nuclear vs renewables, as if those claims don't need any actual numbers to go along with them.

Ygg2 7y ago
When you break it down, for California (a relatively sunny place) it would take more than $3.63 trillion dollars to be 100% renewable. [1]https://youtu.be/h5cm7HOAqZY?t=709 https://youtu.be/h5cm7HOAqZY?t=709
- phaemon 7y ago
  No it wouldn't. The assumptions made in that video are ridiculous. You don't need to have storage for all your solar; you turn other sources off when you have excess supply. Or you can switch them off simply by covering them. Batteries are not the only form of storage. Hydro exists and is in use already. You are allowed to import electricity. There are other renewables besides solar and wind. etc etc etc...
  - Ygg2 7y ago
    I disagree. Assumptions made in the video are realistic. You kinda need battery storage for your solar/wind. Other sources can be hard/impossible to stop. Batteries are the only form of storage that's scalable. Hydro exist, but you can't expect to just add another hydroelectric dam, whenever your solar overwhelms your current capacity. Hell even storing gravitational energy probably requires frankly massive amounts of development. You are allowed to import/export electricity, but the assumption is others will have similar power sources, no? When there is the excess sun in one area, it's either going to be excess in nearby areas (because day happens nearby at the same time). Sure, you want to export to countries without sun, but the loses are probably going to be huge (loses mean infrastructure is stressed additionally). What other renewable resources? - Hydro? Destructive for the environment kills migrating fish, ruins ecosystems and not available everywhere. - Geothermal? Only available at a few places can possibly lead to earthquakes. - Bioenergy? Causes horrible air pollution.
    - phaemon 7y ago
      > I disagree. Assumptions made in the video are realistic. Nope, they're the opposite of realistic because they disagree with reality. > You kinda need battery storage for your solar/wind. You kinda don't. Here in Scotland, we've gone from around 15% renewables in 2007 to 70% in 2017. We closed our last coal station in 2016. Guess how many battery storage facilities we have? None. There are plans to build one in the near future. And yet we have a perfectly fine and consistent electricity supply. When reality disagrees with your theory, it's your theory that's wrong. The other obvious renewable in California would be tidal. Oh, and you can get rid of all your hydro when you no longer have any need for water. I swear sometimes people forget what dams are actually used for.
      - Ygg2 7y ago
        > Nope, they're the opposite of realistic because they disagree with reality. Or, your premises are different. From what I see Scotland derives like 90% of its power from Wind, which is possible its unique property. Another thing to take into consideration is that California has a larger population than Scotland. But overall I get what you are saying. I still suspect going 100% renewable won't be feasible for most countries.

Ygg2 7y ago

When you break it down, for California (a relatively sunny place) it would take more than $3.63 trillion dollars to be 100% renewable. [1]https://youtu.be/h5cm7HOAqZY?t=709 https://youtu.be/h5cm7HOAqZY?t=709

phaemon 7y ago
No it wouldn't. The assumptions made in that video are ridiculous. You don't need to have storage for all your solar; you turn other sources off when you have excess supply. Or you can switch them off simply by covering them. Batteries are not the only form of storage. Hydro exists and is in use already. You are allowed to import electricity. There are other renewables besides solar and wind. etc etc etc...
- Ygg2 7y ago
  I disagree. Assumptions made in the video are realistic. You kinda need battery storage for your solar/wind. Other sources can be hard/impossible to stop. Batteries are the only form of storage that's scalable. Hydro exist, but you can't expect to just add another hydroelectric dam, whenever your solar overwhelms your current capacity. Hell even storing gravitational energy probably requires frankly massive amounts of development. You are allowed to import/export electricity, but the assumption is others will have similar power sources, no? When there is the excess sun in one area, it's either going to be excess in nearby areas (because day happens nearby at the same time). Sure, you want to export to countries without sun, but the loses are probably going to be huge (loses mean infrastructure is stressed additionally). What other renewable resources? - Hydro? Destructive for the environment kills migrating fish, ruins ecosystems and not available everywhere. - Geothermal? Only available at a few places can possibly lead to earthquakes. - Bioenergy? Causes horrible air pollution.
  - phaemon 7y ago
    > I disagree. Assumptions made in the video are realistic. Nope, they're the opposite of realistic because they disagree with reality. > You kinda need battery storage for your solar/wind. You kinda don't. Here in Scotland, we've gone from around 15% renewables in 2007 to 70% in 2017. We closed our last coal station in 2016. Guess how many battery storage facilities we have? None. There are plans to build one in the near future. And yet we have a perfectly fine and consistent electricity supply. When reality disagrees with your theory, it's your theory that's wrong. The other obvious renewable in California would be tidal. Oh, and you can get rid of all your hydro when you no longer have any need for water. I swear sometimes people forget what dams are actually used for.
    - Ygg2 7y ago
      > Nope, they're the opposite of realistic because they disagree with reality. Or, your premises are different. From what I see Scotland derives like 90% of its power from Wind, which is possible its unique property. Another thing to take into consideration is that California has a larger population than Scotland. But overall I get what you are saying. I still suspect going 100% renewable won't be feasible for most countries.