5 ms·

https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=374 https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=374

belorn 6y ago
To read the summery: "The intermittency of other sources such as wind and solar photovoltaic can be addressed by interconnecting power plants which are widely geographically distributed, and by coupling them with peak-load plants such as gas turbines fueled by biofuels or natural gas which can quickly be switched on to fill in gaps of low wind or solar production." So we can burn the fossil fuel natural gas or a similar gas generated by decomposing bio material. That seems a bit of an odd proof. It seems pretty obvious that burning fuels that releases carbon into the air solves the issue of providing a baseload for renewables, but it has the general problem of releasing carbon into the air. Biofuels are also pretty controversial since they take up a lot of land and fertilizers are not themselves carbon neutral, and current methods for both creating the fuel and the fertilizers has shown to be a major contributor of methane leaking into the air. As I like to say in this kind of threads, lets ban the act of burning fossil fuels for power. If the market can manage the energy grid without fossil fuels then let the market do that. Which ever technology comes out on top is less important than the fact that we can purge fossil fuels from being used when there is a cleaner alternative.
- jabl 6y ago
  > As I like to say in this kind of threads, lets ban the act of burning fossil fuels for power. That's most likely too drastic, leading to a massive immediate economic crash. That being said, what could be done is to start a massive society-wide decarbonization program (think WWII style industrial mobilization), which would start with a few years of building up industrial capacity, followed by a ban on building any new fossil infrastructure or equipment. See e.g. https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/21349200/climate-change-fossil-fuels-rewiring-america-electrify https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/21349200/climate-... If we are to take climate change seriously, it's too late to waffle around the margins with carbon taxes etc. and expect that the free market will take care of it all.
  - belorn 6y ago
    > That's most likely too drastic, leading to a massive immediate economic crash. I have heard this argument before but not much evidence to support it. There was identical arguments here where I live when they decided to phase out nuclear, and in fairness to the politicians back then, it did not cause an immediate economic crash. Just stopping the production of new plants and letting existing plants operate until they reach their expected operation life time span works pretty well. The energy markets adapts and there are instead an renewed interest to invest as people know that in the future there will be a vacant spot in the market when those plants get decommissioned. Some even argued that it caused stability in the energy market. The major problem right now is that for the last 10 years, for every extra 1 WGh of new renewable being consumed the fossil based energy also expand by 10 WGh. Looking at world politics and right now there is a lot of focus on expanding fossil fuel extracting and exporting, especially for natural gas. In the EU there are military right now being mobilized because of interest to drill for more natural gas. Investment into new fossil fuel infrastructure has not slowed down but is rather picking up speed. Massive society-wide decarbonization program where we turn existing fossil fuel plant into carbonfree alternatives are needed, but we should stop people from furthering investing into fossil fuels when there exist a purpose serving alternative. I don't see any good reason to wait.
    - jabl 6y ago
      Seems we're in violent agreement then. I misunderstood your point to mean an immediate ban on burning any fossil fuel.
- Krasnol 6y ago
  This article is 9 years old. No nuclear plant would have been build in that time, no significant development in this technology happened but the development of renewable energy sources and batteries has progressed rapidly. We've witnessed Elon Musk's battery farm, ideas like floatovoltaics, Building-integrated photovoltaics, stuff around hydrogen storage, etc. There are also grids like in Europe where even when there is no sun shining and no wind blowing (never happens), there is always a dam in the Alps or Scandinavia. If you have to depend on gas for the next decade and abolish coal for that, it's still a huge win and progress with an outcome that looks much brighter than this of building a single new nuclear plant or even drowning even more money into research of something that may or may not become realistic in many decades (like fusion). @the market: if we've learned something in the recent decades than it is that "the market" can't do shit without rules and regulations. Literally. They'll mess up everything they get into their hands and bring out the worse of it. PS. you are aware that there are already uses for Methane and that there is even P2G generation going on where you gather CO2 from the atmosphere to generate Methane which is than burned afterwards to generate energy.
  - TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
    That's the most frustrating thing about these debates. The innovation momentum is clearly with renewables. There's been huge positive change over the last decade against huge resistance. If that resistance disappeared - even if it was just lessened significantly because of policy - storage, local grid, state grid, national grid and even international grid solutions would all start taking huge leaps forward. At this point nuclear is for technological nostalgics. There's no role for it, and no need for it. It's an overcomplicated, fragile, dirty, high risk technology which requires strict political, financial, and operational oversight. And when TCO is calculated - something nuke proponents seem to avoid - it isn't even particularly cheap.
  - belorn 6y ago
    > there is always a dam in the Alps or Scandinavia Speaking as someone from Sweden, we have already reached maximum exploitation of rivers for hydropower, and it is barely managing to maintain the grid in the winter when the wind is laying low. Expanding it more is not seen as an option, and when the few nuclear plants that is still operational goes offline there are claims that we will need to start import fossil fueled energy during some days of the year.

To read the summery: "The intermittency of other sources such as wind and solar photovoltaic can be addressed by interconnecting power plants which are widely geographically distributed, and by coupling them with peak-load plants such as gas turbines fueled by biofuels or natural gas which can quickly be switched on to fill in gaps of low wind or solar production." So we can burn the fossil fuel natural gas or a similar gas generated by decomposing bio material. That seems a bit of an odd proof. It seems pretty obvious that burning fuels that releases carbon into the air solves the issue of providing a baseload for renewables, but it has the general problem of releasing carbon into the air. Biofuels are also pretty controversial since they take up a lot of land and fertilizers are not themselves carbon neutral, and current methods for both creating the fuel and the fertilizers has shown to be a major contributor of methane leaking into the air. As I like to say in this kind of threads, lets ban the act of burning fossil fuels for power. If the market can manage the energy grid without fossil fuels then let the market do that. Which ever technology comes out on top is less important than the fact that we can purge fossil fuels from being used when there is a cleaner alternative.

jabl 6y ago
> As I like to say in this kind of threads, lets ban the act of burning fossil fuels for power. That's most likely too drastic, leading to a massive immediate economic crash. That being said, what could be done is to start a massive society-wide decarbonization program (think WWII style industrial mobilization), which would start with a few years of building up industrial capacity, followed by a ban on building any new fossil infrastructure or equipment. See e.g. https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/21349200/climate-change-fossil-fuels-rewiring-america-electrify https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/21349200/climate-... If we are to take climate change seriously, it's too late to waffle around the margins with carbon taxes etc. and expect that the free market will take care of it all.
- belorn 6y ago
  > That's most likely too drastic, leading to a massive immediate economic crash. I have heard this argument before but not much evidence to support it. There was identical arguments here where I live when they decided to phase out nuclear, and in fairness to the politicians back then, it did not cause an immediate economic crash. Just stopping the production of new plants and letting existing plants operate until they reach their expected operation life time span works pretty well. The energy markets adapts and there are instead an renewed interest to invest as people know that in the future there will be a vacant spot in the market when those plants get decommissioned. Some even argued that it caused stability in the energy market. The major problem right now is that for the last 10 years, for every extra 1 WGh of new renewable being consumed the fossil based energy also expand by 10 WGh. Looking at world politics and right now there is a lot of focus on expanding fossil fuel extracting and exporting, especially for natural gas. In the EU there are military right now being mobilized because of interest to drill for more natural gas. Investment into new fossil fuel infrastructure has not slowed down but is rather picking up speed. Massive society-wide decarbonization program where we turn existing fossil fuel plant into carbonfree alternatives are needed, but we should stop people from furthering investing into fossil fuels when there exist a purpose serving alternative. I don't see any good reason to wait.
  - jabl 6y ago
    Seems we're in violent agreement then. I misunderstood your point to mean an immediate ban on burning any fossil fuel.
Krasnol 6y ago
This article is 9 years old. No nuclear plant would have been build in that time, no significant development in this technology happened but the development of renewable energy sources and batteries has progressed rapidly. We've witnessed Elon Musk's battery farm, ideas like floatovoltaics, Building-integrated photovoltaics, stuff around hydrogen storage, etc. There are also grids like in Europe where even when there is no sun shining and no wind blowing (never happens), there is always a dam in the Alps or Scandinavia. If you have to depend on gas for the next decade and abolish coal for that, it's still a huge win and progress with an outcome that looks much brighter than this of building a single new nuclear plant or even drowning even more money into research of something that may or may not become realistic in many decades (like fusion). @the market: if we've learned something in the recent decades than it is that "the market" can't do shit without rules and regulations. Literally. They'll mess up everything they get into their hands and bring out the worse of it. PS. you are aware that there are already uses for Methane and that there is even P2G generation going on where you gather CO2 from the atmosphere to generate Methane which is than burned afterwards to generate energy.
- TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
  That's the most frustrating thing about these debates. The innovation momentum is clearly with renewables. There's been huge positive change over the last decade against huge resistance. If that resistance disappeared - even if it was just lessened significantly because of policy - storage, local grid, state grid, national grid and even international grid solutions would all start taking huge leaps forward. At this point nuclear is for technological nostalgics. There's no role for it, and no need for it. It's an overcomplicated, fragile, dirty, high risk technology which requires strict political, financial, and operational oversight. And when TCO is calculated - something nuke proponents seem to avoid - it isn't even particularly cheap.
- belorn 6y ago
  > there is always a dam in the Alps or Scandinavia Speaking as someone from Sweden, we have already reached maximum exploitation of rivers for hydropower, and it is barely managing to maintain the grid in the winter when the wind is laying low. Expanding it more is not seen as an option, and when the few nuclear plants that is still operational goes offline there are claims that we will need to start import fossil fueled energy during some days of the year.