6 ms·

Nuclear, Hydro and Geothermal are pretty much the only energy sources that are truly fossil-fuel free and are able to replace coal and natural gas - though hydr

Nuclear, Hydro and Geothermal are pretty much the only energy sources that are truly fossil-fuel free and are able to replace coal and natural gas - though hydro/geothermal need particular geography for them to be viable. Hydro does have huge detrimental environmental impact but it's probably worth it. Anyway, everytime there is some headline blaring about some region or country being 99% renewable based (for example, Costa Rica[1]) is because it leverages one or more of those. For example, here's a live view of the energy of my home province: http://live.gridwatch.ca/home-page.html http://live.gridwatch.ca/home-page.html .. we're pretty much carbon free because of Nuclear and Hydro. On the other end, Germany decided to go with solar and wind and they aren't expected to be carbon-free until 2060s because they need natural gas as backup. This is also why they are spending billions on pipelines to ship MORE natural gas from Russia. Makes you wonder why we're bothering with solar and wind, which can't power a modern economy without fossil-fuel backup and therefore are only good for niche applications. [1]https://ticotimes.net/2019/09/24/costa-rica-will-run-on-more-than-98-renewable-energy-for-fifth-consecutive-year-government-says https://ticotimes.net/2019/09/24/costa-rica-will-run-on-more...

beat 7y ago
Solar and wind are much cheaper. That's why.
- macspoofing 7y ago
  They aren't, but let's say for argument that they are. So what? If they can't actually replace coal and natural gas, then what's the point? And they can't. Solar and wind are intermittent power sources, meaning that there are times when you aren't generating any energy because the sun ain't shining and the wind ain't blowing. There is also no battery technology that can scale to the level of cities or nations for a period of hours, days or weeks (and we would need around 8 to 16 weeks of storage to bridge seasonal intermittency). Instead what we're seeing are those regions that heavily invest in solar and wind need to make a comparable investment in natural gas to make them viable.
  - kragen 7y ago
    None of this is correct, except that solar and wind are intermittent, and there are a lot of new gas stations being built, but mostly not because of renewables. Well, and in Antarctica you actually do need to bridge seasonal intermittency; McMurdo isn't going solar anytime soon.
    - macspoofing 7y ago
      Which part is incorrect? Can you elaborate?
      - kragen 7y ago
        Yes, but I think I'll do it in Dercuano instead of the comment section here; it'll be a lot more readable that way. I've started a “vulgar misconceptions” category in it, and you've given me a lot of great material here, since it appears you're sincerely misinformed, not trolling.
        macspoofing 7y ago
        I have no idea what a 'dercuano' is. Can you make a little effort here? Just something that would demonstrate to me that I'm incorrect. I want to be wrong. Right now it sounds like you feel like I'm wrong but you can't actually explain in what way. So instead you've decided to tell me I'm wrong (but not why). And now you've decided to insult me as well. Here's what I see: - We don't have a battery technology that can store enough energy to power an economy for even minutes. In solar/wind deployments we would need batteries to store energy for up to weeks. If there is, please tell me what it is. Lithium Ion doesn't work at that scale and cannot be relied upon to hold weeks of storage. Pumped storage is expensive but more importantly need particular geography to work. There are no examples of this large scale energy storage in practice. - Because we don't have such a battery technology, solar and wind deployments require burning some fossil-fuel (coal, natural gas garbage, corn etc.). We see this in regions that decide to double-down on solar and wind. A perfect example is Germany. As they increase their solar/wind footprint, they are increasing their natural gas dependency by spending billions on NEW pipelines to Russia to ship their natural gas for decades. What do they know that you don't? - There are also NO regions that power their economy wholly on renewables that don't involve nuclear, geothermal and hydro. No regions have plans in the immediate future (e.g. within 10 years) to do so either. - There are a lot of other major issues with solar/wind, such as the huge land area requirements, and the need for large quantities of rare earth materials and lack of recycling. All these issues will be magnified as more and more regions invest in large-scale solar/wind deployments. I shudder at the thought of 100x or 1000x increase in solar cell production and what that would do to the environment, especially as these cells reach the end of their 20-25 year life. I don't think any of those statements are wrong or controversial. I'm not happy that this is the case. I would like solar and wind to be viable, but nobody will ever tell me how they could be without arguing that we will invent some new technology (like a better battery) to make it all work. To me it looks like nuclear, hydro and geothermal are the only real answers (with solar/wind having niche applications). This is a live view of the energy mix of my home province (pop:14m): http://live.gridwatch.ca/home-page.html http://live.gridwatch.ca/home-page.html - depending on when you look you may see 98% carbon-free energy generation. Don't need to wait until 2060 (the time that Germany is expected to be carbon-free) To me this looks like the future.
- manfredo 7y ago
  Cheaper, but intermittent. Factor in the cost of massive energy storage and the cost is no longer competitive. This is largely academic anyway, the technology to store energy at the capacities necessary to power whole nations on wind and solar hasn't moved off the drawing boards.

beat 7y ago

Solar and wind are much cheaper. That's why.

macspoofing 7y ago
They aren't, but let's say for argument that they are. So what? If they can't actually replace coal and natural gas, then what's the point? And they can't. Solar and wind are intermittent power sources, meaning that there are times when you aren't generating any energy because the sun ain't shining and the wind ain't blowing. There is also no battery technology that can scale to the level of cities or nations for a period of hours, days or weeks (and we would need around 8 to 16 weeks of storage to bridge seasonal intermittency). Instead what we're seeing are those regions that heavily invest in solar and wind need to make a comparable investment in natural gas to make them viable.
- kragen 7y ago
  None of this is correct, except that solar and wind are intermittent, and there are a lot of new gas stations being built, but mostly not because of renewables. Well, and in Antarctica you actually do need to bridge seasonal intermittency; McMurdo isn't going solar anytime soon.
  - macspoofing 7y ago
    Which part is incorrect? Can you elaborate?
    - kragen 7y ago
      Yes, but I think I'll do it in Dercuano instead of the comment section here; it'll be a lot more readable that way. I've started a “vulgar misconceptions” category in it, and you've given me a lot of great material here, since it appears you're sincerely misinformed, not trolling.
      - macspoofing 7y ago
        I have no idea what a 'dercuano' is. Can you make a little effort here? Just something that would demonstrate to me that I'm incorrect. I want to be wrong. Right now it sounds like you feel like I'm wrong but you can't actually explain in what way. So instead you've decided to tell me I'm wrong (but not why). And now you've decided to insult me as well. Here's what I see: - We don't have a battery technology that can store enough energy to power an economy for even minutes. In solar/wind deployments we would need batteries to store energy for up to weeks. If there is, please tell me what it is. Lithium Ion doesn't work at that scale and cannot be relied upon to hold weeks of storage. Pumped storage is expensive but more importantly need particular geography to work. There are no examples of this large scale energy storage in practice. - Because we don't have such a battery technology, solar and wind deployments require burning some fossil-fuel (coal, natural gas garbage, corn etc.). We see this in regions that decide to double-down on solar and wind. A perfect example is Germany. As they increase their solar/wind footprint, they are increasing their natural gas dependency by spending billions on NEW pipelines to Russia to ship their natural gas for decades. What do they know that you don't? - There are also NO regions that power their economy wholly on renewables that don't involve nuclear, geothermal and hydro. No regions have plans in the immediate future (e.g. within 10 years) to do so either. - There are a lot of other major issues with solar/wind, such as the huge land area requirements, and the need for large quantities of rare earth materials and lack of recycling. All these issues will be magnified as more and more regions invest in large-scale solar/wind deployments. I shudder at the thought of 100x or 1000x increase in solar cell production and what that would do to the environment, especially as these cells reach the end of their 20-25 year life. I don't think any of those statements are wrong or controversial. I'm not happy that this is the case. I would like solar and wind to be viable, but nobody will ever tell me how they could be without arguing that we will invent some new technology (like a better battery) to make it all work. To me it looks like nuclear, hydro and geothermal are the only real answers (with solar/wind having niche applications). This is a live view of the energy mix of my home province (pop:14m): http://live.gridwatch.ca/home-page.html http://live.gridwatch.ca/home-page.html - depending on when you look you may see 98% carbon-free energy generation. Don't need to wait until 2060 (the time that Germany is expected to be carbon-free) To me this looks like the future.
manfredo 7y ago
Cheaper, but intermittent. Factor in the cost of massive energy storage and the cost is no longer competitive. This is largely academic anyway, the technology to store energy at the capacities necessary to power whole nations on wind and solar hasn't moved off the drawing boards.