3 ms·

Wouldn’t it use much much less natural gas though?

cbcoutinho 7y ago
No, because of the various 'baseload' energy sources that maintain the bulk of the electricity capacity, natural gas is the quickest to turn on and off. This flexibility lends itself to be a better 'backup' than a coal or nuclear plant. Increasing the capacity of solar and wind essentially makes the grid less stable and requires other baseload sources to be more flexible. Natural gas power plants, being more flexible than the others, see that as a huge potential to corner off a chunk of the baseload market.
bilbo0s 7y ago
Of course. LNG plants are somewhat unique in that you can switch them on and off like light switches. And that's the name of the game: Try to minimize pollutants. Pollutants can never go to zero. There will always be some. Question is, which strategy gets you closest to zero. Wind+Water is the lowest pollutant profile we know of currently, and such a system in a state or city would still produce a lot of pollutants during its build out.
- macspoofing 7y ago
  >And that's the name of the game: Try to minimize pollutants. No. The name of the game is to remove CO2 emissions. Because, as I've been told, CO2 emissions are an existential threat to humanity. Or is that not the case anymore? >Wind+Water is the lowest pollutant profile we know of currently No. Nuclear is. Hydro works but is geographically dependent. Both Wind and Water have huge environmental footprints with enormous impact on local ecosystems.
  - bilbo0s 7y ago
    All pollutants are existential threats to humans. As a matter of fact, that's a very large part of the reason we call them "pollutants". You're saying that CO2 can affect more humans, which is likely true. But whether you kill 100000 or 100000000, you're still killing. And though pollutants could kill 100000 or 100000000, to date there has not been such massive losses attributed to pollutants. (Dropping radioactive nuclear warheads on cities doesn't count, because we meant to kill those people.) Also, pumped hydro is not geographically dependent. Where are people parroting that idea from? You dig a cylinder into the bedrock, water proof it and fill it with water. There's a piston at the top that lowers slowly over time, thus providing the flow back into the top of the cylinder for power. Finally, every energy plant has enormous impacts on local ecosystems. Do you want to save the squirrels, or the humans? If you want to save both, Wind+Water is unquestionably the best system to build. But it's enormously expensive. (Ask the average civil engineer how much drilling the pylons for an average skyscraper costs. Yeah, this would cost even more and you'd be drilling pylon equivalents for 20 skyscrapers at the same time.) So people instead use the cheapest system to build, which is Wind+LNG.
    - macspoofing 7y ago
      >All pollutants are existential threats to humans If that's the way you see CO2 emissions, then I have no quarrel with you - though you may be at odds with the entire environmental movement and possibly climatologists. Carbon emissions are not sold today as just another pollutant (out of many) that needs to be managed. They are sold as THE existential threat to humanity. If you don't see that, then nuclear is not necessary, you can get good, clean power generation from natural gas and wind/solar mix.

No, because of the various 'baseload' energy sources that maintain the bulk of the electricity capacity, natural gas is the quickest to turn on and off. This flexibility lends itself to be a better 'backup' than a coal or nuclear plant. Increasing the capacity of solar and wind essentially makes the grid less stable and requires other baseload sources to be more flexible. Natural gas power plants, being more flexible than the others, see that as a huge potential to corner off a chunk of the baseload market.

bilbo0s 7y ago

Of course. LNG plants are somewhat unique in that you can switch them on and off like light switches. And that's the name of the game: Try to minimize pollutants. Pollutants can never go to zero. There will always be some. Question is, which strategy gets you closest to zero. Wind+Water is the lowest pollutant profile we know of currently, and such a system in a state or city would still produce a lot of pollutants during its build out.

macspoofing 7y ago
>And that's the name of the game: Try to minimize pollutants. No. The name of the game is to remove CO2 emissions. Because, as I've been told, CO2 emissions are an existential threat to humanity. Or is that not the case anymore? >Wind+Water is the lowest pollutant profile we know of currently No. Nuclear is. Hydro works but is geographically dependent. Both Wind and Water have huge environmental footprints with enormous impact on local ecosystems.
- bilbo0s 7y ago
  All pollutants are existential threats to humans. As a matter of fact, that's a very large part of the reason we call them "pollutants". You're saying that CO2 can affect more humans, which is likely true. But whether you kill 100000 or 100000000, you're still killing. And though pollutants could kill 100000 or 100000000, to date there has not been such massive losses attributed to pollutants. (Dropping radioactive nuclear warheads on cities doesn't count, because we meant to kill those people.) Also, pumped hydro is not geographically dependent. Where are people parroting that idea from? You dig a cylinder into the bedrock, water proof it and fill it with water. There's a piston at the top that lowers slowly over time, thus providing the flow back into the top of the cylinder for power. Finally, every energy plant has enormous impacts on local ecosystems. Do you want to save the squirrels, or the humans? If you want to save both, Wind+Water is unquestionably the best system to build. But it's enormously expensive. (Ask the average civil engineer how much drilling the pylons for an average skyscraper costs. Yeah, this would cost even more and you'd be drilling pylon equivalents for 20 skyscrapers at the same time.) So people instead use the cheapest system to build, which is Wind+LNG.
  - macspoofing 7y ago
    >All pollutants are existential threats to humans If that's the way you see CO2 emissions, then I have no quarrel with you - though you may be at odds with the entire environmental movement and possibly climatologists. Carbon emissions are not sold today as just another pollutant (out of many) that needs to be managed. They are sold as THE existential threat to humanity. If you don't see that, then nuclear is not necessary, you can get good, clean power generation from natural gas and wind/solar mix.