6 ms·

> There's no way for anyone to make money by being responsible Not just that, but there's no way to sustain the level of human development (and population) we

by aksss 6y ago

> There's no way for anyone to make money by being responsible Not just that, but there's no way to sustain the level of human development (and population) we currently have without continuing to feed the energy beast. Our daily burn rate on oil/gas/coal is so profoundly high, and growing, that a) nothing can fill the gap; and b) it can't be shut down without condemning further development (esp. in Africa, India and China). Two disconnected factoids to illustrate the level of dependency and consumption we have today: without ammonia synthesis from fossil fuel, worldwide organic fertilizer stock could sustain only about 4bln people - globally; China in-serviced more cement (which requires fossil fuels) in like five years than the US did in the last 100 years. To reduce carbon output, you need to switch coal use to natural gas where possible. That's the best near term solution right now - isolate coal and oil consumption to the industries that really need them - e.g. transportation, manufacturing - and work on alternative sources of electric generation, i.e. hydro where available, nuclear where not, unless some miracle net-positive and reliable electric generation method becomes available in the meantime.

godzillabrennus 6y ago
We can use nuclear ️ to lower carbon emissions.
- pfdietz 6y ago
  Using renewables would be more cost effective, even up to 100% replacement of fossil fuels. Cost of storage does not change this conclusion.
  - aksss 6y ago
    There is zero chance of 100% replacement of fossil fuels with renewables. Zero. Without a Thanos solution. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkj_91IJVBk&list=WL&index=5&t=855s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkj_91IJVBk&list=WL&index=5&... EDIT: I mean, you guys are downvoting these comments, and I'm sorry to tell you things you don't want to hear, but would prefer that you respond with contrary information rather than downvoting. Happy to alter my views and engage in information sharing.
    - pfdietz 6y ago
      You're simply wrong, and we will continue to tell you things YOU don't want to hear. Replacing fossil fuels with renewables is altogether more practical and economical than doing so with a combination of new nuclear and renewables. This wasn't true even ten years ago, but the costs of renewables have fallen so fast that it's now the case. At the same time, the supposed "Nuclear Renaissance" was revealed to be an illusion. Nuclear is now a dead technology walking. And renewables (and associated technologies like batteries and electrolyzers) continue to show cost declines at a rate nuclear could only dream of. BTW, summarize the argument in the video. I don't waste my time watching video links.
      - unFou 6y ago
        I'm not sure whether nuclear is better, and renewables definitely is a good thing to have in the mix. But comparing the carbon emissions of Germany and France, and the cost of electricity in both countries would suggest that at least currently, renewables without nuclear isn't as effective for supplying our power needs as renewables with nuclear. If I've misunderstood this somewhere, I would love to learn more.
        simonh 6y ago
        Germany jumped the gun. They started investing heavily in renewables when they were still very costly and storage technologies weren’t practical. Things have changed a lot in the last 30 years.
        g8oz 6y ago
        It’s been argued that their “premature” investment primed the pump for renewables globally.
        pfdietz 6y ago
        You're making an invalid argument there. The current generation mix in France and Germany reflects decisions made up to decades in the past, when relative prices were very different from what they are now. Back in the 20th century when France was building reactors, renewables were much more expensive. What was the low cost option then is not what it is now. Going forward, even France is having a very hard time building reactors, and is finding renewables are cheaper. This is one reason why France's nuclear industry is in such trouble. Germany deliberately pushed renewables in order to send them down their experience curves. This was spectacularly successful, but it has come at a high price to their consumers, who are still paying that down. The rest of us have reaped the benefit of far lower renewable costs.
- mellavora 6y ago
  totally mis-read this as "we can use nuclear weapons to lower carbon emissions"... teach me to scan instead of read!
kortilla 6y ago
Or, you know, just use nuclear.
- aksss 6y ago
  I mentioned nuclear. It is secondary to the conversion from coal to gas though in terms of near-term realized benefit. Nuclear requires a lot of dereg and testing that will be decades out if we start today. This assumes the barriers of popular rejection can be overcome. China might pull it off, but I don't see the US radiating enthusiasm for it. But yeah, since few places on earth can take advantage of hydro, I don't see any long-term alternative to nuclear.
  - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
    It does not require dereg, it requires investment. Just lile renewables do.
    - arpa 6y ago
      It just isn't as hot right now as "renewables". What's needed is a good marketing campaign, people will follow, and so will imvestments. Downsides will be gleefully ignored, just like with solar.
    - iso1631 6y ago
      The UK is building a new nuclear plant and new offshore wind. The nuclear plant has a strike price twice as high as the offshore wind.
      - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
        And the nuclear plant will produce at 100% of its capacity in any weather. Meanwhile wind will jave average capacity of like 30%
    - aksss 6y ago
      Many developed nations are reducing nuclear energy dependency as a matter of policy and preventing new reactors as a matter of regulation so dereg is a barrier that needs to be addressed for nuclear to become an alternative source in the highest carbon-impacting nations. The key parameters in a nuclear build are: 1) the construction time (impacted by regulatory regimes) 2) the cost of capital (interest rate of tying up money) 3) an uncertainty factor about getting shut down (impacted by regulatory regimes) In China, 1&2 are 3-4 years and 2% respectively. In the US they are 8-9 years, 15% and maybe 50% chance you'll be shut down before you can finish. [0] [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1EB1zsxW0k&t=1154 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1EB1zsxW0k&t=1154
alharith 6y ago
Nuclear. The answer always has been nuclear.

by aksss 6y ago

godzillabrennus 6y ago

We can use nuclear ️ to lower carbon emissions.

pfdietz 6y ago
Using renewables would be more cost effective, even up to 100% replacement of fossil fuels. Cost of storage does not change this conclusion.
- aksss 6y ago
  There is zero chance of 100% replacement of fossil fuels with renewables. Zero. Without a Thanos solution. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkj_91IJVBk&list=WL&index=5&t=855s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkj_91IJVBk&list=WL&index=5&... EDIT: I mean, you guys are downvoting these comments, and I'm sorry to tell you things you don't want to hear, but would prefer that you respond with contrary information rather than downvoting. Happy to alter my views and engage in information sharing.
  - pfdietz 6y ago
    You're simply wrong, and we will continue to tell you things YOU don't want to hear. Replacing fossil fuels with renewables is altogether more practical and economical than doing so with a combination of new nuclear and renewables. This wasn't true even ten years ago, but the costs of renewables have fallen so fast that it's now the case. At the same time, the supposed "Nuclear Renaissance" was revealed to be an illusion. Nuclear is now a dead technology walking. And renewables (and associated technologies like batteries and electrolyzers) continue to show cost declines at a rate nuclear could only dream of. BTW, summarize the argument in the video. I don't waste my time watching video links.
    - unFou 6y ago
      I'm not sure whether nuclear is better, and renewables definitely is a good thing to have in the mix. But comparing the carbon emissions of Germany and France, and the cost of electricity in both countries would suggest that at least currently, renewables without nuclear isn't as effective for supplying our power needs as renewables with nuclear. If I've misunderstood this somewhere, I would love to learn more.
      - simonh 6y ago
        Germany jumped the gun. They started investing heavily in renewables when they were still very costly and storage technologies weren’t practical. Things have changed a lot in the last 30 years.
        g8oz 6y ago
        It’s been argued that their “premature” investment primed the pump for renewables globally.
      - pfdietz 6y ago
        You're making an invalid argument there. The current generation mix in France and Germany reflects decisions made up to decades in the past, when relative prices were very different from what they are now. Back in the 20th century when France was building reactors, renewables were much more expensive. What was the low cost option then is not what it is now. Going forward, even France is having a very hard time building reactors, and is finding renewables are cheaper. This is one reason why France's nuclear industry is in such trouble. Germany deliberately pushed renewables in order to send them down their experience curves. This was spectacularly successful, but it has come at a high price to their consumers, who are still paying that down. The rest of us have reaped the benefit of far lower renewable costs.
mellavora 6y ago
totally mis-read this as "we can use nuclear weapons to lower carbon emissions"... teach me to scan instead of read!

kortilla 6y ago

Or, you know, just use nuclear.

aksss 6y ago
I mentioned nuclear. It is secondary to the conversion from coal to gas though in terms of near-term realized benefit. Nuclear requires a lot of dereg and testing that will be decades out if we start today. This assumes the barriers of popular rejection can be overcome. China might pull it off, but I don't see the US radiating enthusiasm for it. But yeah, since few places on earth can take advantage of hydro, I don't see any long-term alternative to nuclear.
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  It does not require dereg, it requires investment. Just lile renewables do.
  - arpa 6y ago
    It just isn't as hot right now as "renewables". What's needed is a good marketing campaign, people will follow, and so will imvestments. Downsides will be gleefully ignored, just like with solar.
  - iso1631 6y ago
    The UK is building a new nuclear plant and new offshore wind. The nuclear plant has a strike price twice as high as the offshore wind.
    - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
      And the nuclear plant will produce at 100% of its capacity in any weather. Meanwhile wind will jave average capacity of like 30%
  - aksss 6y ago
    Many developed nations are reducing nuclear energy dependency as a matter of policy and preventing new reactors as a matter of regulation so dereg is a barrier that needs to be addressed for nuclear to become an alternative source in the highest carbon-impacting nations. The key parameters in a nuclear build are: 1) the construction time (impacted by regulatory regimes) 2) the cost of capital (interest rate of tying up money) 3) an uncertainty factor about getting shut down (impacted by regulatory regimes) In China, 1&2 are 3-4 years and 2% respectively. In the US they are 8-9 years, 15% and maybe 50% chance you'll be shut down before you can finish. [0] [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1EB1zsxW0k&t=1154 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1EB1zsxW0k&t=1154

alharith 6y ago

Nuclear. The answer always has been nuclear.