3 ms·

Nuclear is the only way we’re going to be able to get ahead of climate change. Renewables do not have the energy density required at this point. In the 70s? Sur

Nuclear is the only way we’re going to be able to get ahead of climate change. Renewables do not have the energy density required at this point. In the 70s? Sure, we might have been able to get ahead of it. At this point, we’re going to need nuclear whether we like it or not. Nuclear is the only option that will provide enough power to both scrub out existing carbon from the atmosphere and reduce our output of carbon while we do it.

socialdemocrat 6y ago
50m2 Solar on the roof top of every household would power An average western country. That is not a lot. And that is is an upper band as we have wind power, biomass, hydro power geothermal and many other sources of clean energy. Offshore wind is getting really cheap and offers vast amount of unused space.
- Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
  There are western countries with snow in the winter. Also, countries where the majority of population lives in apartments. Also, how would an average western country power itself at nights, if all it has is 50m2 solar on every roof top?
  - socialdemocrat 6y ago
    As I mentioned we got tons of other options besides solar power. EVs are now increasingly beating gasoline cars on cost of ownership and these often have batteries large enough to store the power required for 4 days of a regular western household. I doubt you will be entirely without sunshine for 4 days straight.
    - Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
      > I doubt you will be entirely without sunshine for 4 days straight. Come to Russia, some place like Yekaterinburg. Or Saint-Petersburg, where the sun can be unseen for months.
      - socialdemocrat 6y ago
        Repeating myself for the 3rd time: There are other options beside solar power, so why keep harping on this? In fact Denmark gets about 65% of their power from wind. The UK also gets a lot of their power form wind. For many norther countries, wind power has quite a lot of potential.
        Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
        > In fact Denmark gets about 65% of their power from wind. Not true. Just 47% [1], and Denmark is a country with the most favorable conditions for wind generation. Statistics are easy to manipulate if you allow yourself to add 15 percent here, subtract 15% there.. Also, Denmark relies on Sweden (who utilize nuclear power a lot) and Norway to provide power when renewables are not providing enough power [1]: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climate-change-denmark-windpower-idUSKBN1Z10KE https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climate-change-denmark-wi...
        socialdemocrat 6y ago
        I am talking about 2020: https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-coronavirus-has-cut-co2-from-europes-electricity-system-by-39-per-cent https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-coronavirus-has-cut-co2... You refer to 2019 when renewables gave 50% of Danish power. > Also, Denmark relies on Sweden (who utilize nuclear power a lot) and Norway to provide power when renewables are not providing enough power Yes, but the capacity for import and export is limited. Despite these limitations Denmark has managed to run on 65% wind power in 2020 without breaking the grid. Thanks to COVID19 we get a look at the future in terms of how much of electricity production renewables can handle.
pfdietz 6y ago
This is a nonsense argument. How does the energy density of renewables prevent them from providing all the energy we need? Show us the quantitative argument (spoiler: you will not be able to do so.)
- shakezula 6y ago
  It’s not about total capacity they can provide, it’s how quickly and efficiently they can provide a unit of energy capacity, and how much carbon those materials themselves produce during manufacturing. Nuclear is, across the board, more efficient. Solar simply isn’t efficient enough, strictly speaking in terms of output per unit of input, to generate the energy we will need to reverse climate change and reduce current emissions enough.
  - pfdietz 6y ago
    Carbon produced during manufacturing is a bad metric right now. If producing a MW of levelized capacity for solar (say) causes emission of twice the CO2 of a MW of nuclear, but displaces much more CO2 of fossil emission per $ invested than nuclear, then going with solar displaces more CO2 than going with nuclear, for a given investment budget. Also, the CO2 emission is a function of the level of fossil fuel use remaining in the rest of the economy. Transporting materials to the site depends on whether those vehicles are burning fossil fuels or not, for example. The focus on current CO2 from manufacturing is implicitly assuming that we will always need fossil fuels to build these things, that the processes and materials can never be performed/made with non-fossil inputs. With that assumption, we're doomed, so the difference is irrelevant anyway.

socialdemocrat 6y ago

50m2 Solar on the roof top of every household would power An average western country. That is not a lot. And that is is an upper band as we have wind power, biomass, hydro power geothermal and many other sources of clean energy. Offshore wind is getting really cheap and offers vast amount of unused space.

Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
There are western countries with snow in the winter. Also, countries where the majority of population lives in apartments. Also, how would an average western country power itself at nights, if all it has is 50m2 solar on every roof top?
- socialdemocrat 6y ago
  As I mentioned we got tons of other options besides solar power. EVs are now increasingly beating gasoline cars on cost of ownership and these often have batteries large enough to store the power required for 4 days of a regular western household. I doubt you will be entirely without sunshine for 4 days straight.
  - Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
    > I doubt you will be entirely without sunshine for 4 days straight. Come to Russia, some place like Yekaterinburg. Or Saint-Petersburg, where the sun can be unseen for months.
    - socialdemocrat 6y ago
      Repeating myself for the 3rd time: There are other options beside solar power, so why keep harping on this? In fact Denmark gets about 65% of their power from wind. The UK also gets a lot of their power form wind. For many norther countries, wind power has quite a lot of potential.
      - Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
        > In fact Denmark gets about 65% of their power from wind. Not true. Just 47% [1], and Denmark is a country with the most favorable conditions for wind generation. Statistics are easy to manipulate if you allow yourself to add 15 percent here, subtract 15% there.. Also, Denmark relies on Sweden (who utilize nuclear power a lot) and Norway to provide power when renewables are not providing enough power [1]: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climate-change-denmark-windpower-idUSKBN1Z10KE https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climate-change-denmark-wi...
        socialdemocrat 6y ago
        I am talking about 2020: https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-coronavirus-has-cut-co2-from-europes-electricity-system-by-39-per-cent https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-coronavirus-has-cut-co2... You refer to 2019 when renewables gave 50% of Danish power. > Also, Denmark relies on Sweden (who utilize nuclear power a lot) and Norway to provide power when renewables are not providing enough power Yes, but the capacity for import and export is limited. Despite these limitations Denmark has managed to run on 65% wind power in 2020 without breaking the grid. Thanks to COVID19 we get a look at the future in terms of how much of electricity production renewables can handle.

pfdietz 6y ago

This is a nonsense argument. How does the energy density of renewables prevent them from providing all the energy we need? Show us the quantitative argument (spoiler: you will not be able to do so.)

shakezula 6y ago
It’s not about total capacity they can provide, it’s how quickly and efficiently they can provide a unit of energy capacity, and how much carbon those materials themselves produce during manufacturing. Nuclear is, across the board, more efficient. Solar simply isn’t efficient enough, strictly speaking in terms of output per unit of input, to generate the energy we will need to reverse climate change and reduce current emissions enough.
- pfdietz 6y ago
  Carbon produced during manufacturing is a bad metric right now. If producing a MW of levelized capacity for solar (say) causes emission of twice the CO2 of a MW of nuclear, but displaces much more CO2 of fossil emission per $ invested than nuclear, then going with solar displaces more CO2 than going with nuclear, for a given investment budget. Also, the CO2 emission is a function of the level of fossil fuel use remaining in the rest of the economy. Transporting materials to the site depends on whether those vehicles are burning fossil fuels or not, for example. The focus on current CO2 from manufacturing is implicitly assuming that we will always need fossil fuels to build these things, that the processes and materials can never be performed/made with non-fossil inputs. With that assumption, we're doomed, so the difference is irrelevant anyway.