5 ms·

I'm not even sure what fight you're trying to pick here, because I'm all for renewables and energy. It's painfully obvious that no, renewables alone do not have

by cmehdy 6y ago

I'm not even sure what fight you're trying to pick here, because I'm all for renewables and energy. It's painfully obvious that no, renewables alone do not have the ability to cover at a low-CO2 footprint and continuous usage the energy needs that we currently have and that are, even with reduction of consumption in richer countries, bound to grow on the whole as population follows the models that indicate about 9 billion people being alive before things potentially slope downwards. It's also not a bad idea at all to be investing seriously into renewables because despite the CO2 footprint related to the creation and maintenance of those sources, from a climate perspective it's the right bet in the long run. But the energy density that you can extract from sources that are inherently at the mercy of a climate that changes are consequently limited and unpredictable (reminder that we are not fully able to predict it - unless you have the magical key to tell us with certainty whether we're really seeing a RCP2.6, a RCP4.5, a RCP8.5, or really any better model), the same sources that by the way aren't scale-able to many places on earth. You don't really bet on wind in the same places and ways you bet on solar for example, since population centers will limit the scale of your operations and weather patterns will limit the scope of what you can extract and CLIMATE CHANGE will change those patterns. You might want to re-assess why is it that you are seemingly so emotionally invested in saying no to the only technique that has an extremely low death count per TWh, can be adapted to most places on Earth, and has an incredibly high and long-lasting ability to power countries.

epistasis 6y ago
My "fight" is that you have now made two plainly false claims: 1) physics precudes renewables from providing our energy needs. This is just a silly claim. There are no such "physics" and if you think that "energy density" stops this from happening, you clearly haven't run any numbers. 2) Renewables aren't reducing carbon output. This is also incredibly bizarre. > You might want to re-assess why is it that you are seemingly so emotionally invested in saying no to the only technique that has an extremely low death count per TWh I'm not saying no to nuclear. I'm saying "no" to ascientific claims about "physics" and "energy density."
- cmehdy 6y ago
  I'm making the claim because it is painfully obvious that unless you're making calculations about spherical cows there's nowhere near enough resources, surface, and specifically predictability to have renewables be more than marginal for a long time. And at all times, due to unpredictability, there is no chance at all that the source is controllable. Therefore, unless and until we have much much MUCH better ways to store energy (which would be absolutely fantastic), we cannot count on renewables alone. As for the second thing I did not claim that, I said that renewables have a CO2 footprint that isn't negligible due to their construction and maintenance (and again, I'm all for renewables - I'm just not lying to myself about renewables solving all the worlds problems) And I don't understand what you're on about when it comes to energy density. If you haven't understood the following you're just deluding yourself: the quantity of materials (i.e. what comes into making a solar panel or windmill or a power plant) and the volume of the transformation sources (i.e. how much space you need for your windmills and solar panels and nuclear power plants) AND the possibility to leverage the energy (i.e. where you can put your mills, panels, or plants) are all overwhelmingly in favour of nuclear. So we should absolutely turn towards renewables, but if you think for one minute that the oil+gas+coal could be dropped for solar panels and mills without actually being carried by the sheer energy output of nuclear, you haven't quite taken a look at the numbers enough.
  - pfdietz 6y ago
    He's right, and you are grossly overestimating your level of clue. You do not understand the degree to which you do not understand. Dunning-Kruger says hi. I suggest you try to fully flesh out your supposed argument, with as much self-skepticism as you can muster. Your enemy is your tendency to motivated reasoning, where you stop thinking when you get a conclusion you like. The symptom of this is that you present half-baked nonsense, which as he told you is easily debunked (or so vague as to not even need debunking.)
    - cmehdy 6y ago
      First, let's get back to the very beginning: my first message gave an explanation to what was pure antagonizing of the "pro-nuclear" people, and I mentioned that it's based on physics (which it is). You're stating a "he's right you're wrong" with an unsubstantiated singular paragraph while I've been giving dozens of elements of reflection over a half dozen posts. That's a bit rich, isn't it? You want something to substantiate a decent amount of what I'm saying? Here's one part[1]. Here's a case for why nuclear is the actual bridge for renewables[2]. Here's why renewables can't save the planet[3]. Reasons for environmentalists to look at nuclear[4]. And if you happen to care enough to actually read full reports, the IPCC did a lot of work and it's always good to try to read their reports with an open mind to collate the data[5]. Have a good day. [1] https://www.thelancet.com/article/S0140-6736(07)61253-7/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/article/S0140-6736(07)61253-7/full... [2] https://towardsdatascience.com/a-case-for-nuclear-bridging-the-route-to-renewables-with-low-carbon-energy-f0ad069a37ce?gi=187ce9ec4531 https://towardsdatascience.com/a-case-for-nuclear-bridging-t... [3] https://quillette.com/2019/02/27/why-renewables-cant-save-the-planet/ https://quillette.com/2019/02/27/why-renewables-cant-save-th... [4] https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2020/09/09/as-renewables-falter-environmentalists-stand-up-for-nuclear/#7c2b81b82d32 https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2020/09/09... [5] https://www.ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar6/ https://www.ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar6/

by cmehdy 6y ago

epistasis 6y ago

My "fight" is that you have now made two plainly false claims: 1) physics precudes renewables from providing our energy needs. This is just a silly claim. There are no such "physics" and if you think that "energy density" stops this from happening, you clearly haven't run any numbers. 2) Renewables aren't reducing carbon output. This is also incredibly bizarre. > You might want to re-assess why is it that you are seemingly so emotionally invested in saying no to the only technique that has an extremely low death count per TWh I'm not saying no to nuclear. I'm saying "no" to ascientific claims about "physics" and "energy density."

cmehdy 6y ago
I'm making the claim because it is painfully obvious that unless you're making calculations about spherical cows there's nowhere near enough resources, surface, and specifically predictability to have renewables be more than marginal for a long time. And at all times, due to unpredictability, there is no chance at all that the source is controllable. Therefore, unless and until we have much much MUCH better ways to store energy (which would be absolutely fantastic), we cannot count on renewables alone. As for the second thing I did not claim that, I said that renewables have a CO2 footprint that isn't negligible due to their construction and maintenance (and again, I'm all for renewables - I'm just not lying to myself about renewables solving all the worlds problems) And I don't understand what you're on about when it comes to energy density. If you haven't understood the following you're just deluding yourself: the quantity of materials (i.e. what comes into making a solar panel or windmill or a power plant) and the volume of the transformation sources (i.e. how much space you need for your windmills and solar panels and nuclear power plants) AND the possibility to leverage the energy (i.e. where you can put your mills, panels, or plants) are all overwhelmingly in favour of nuclear. So we should absolutely turn towards renewables, but if you think for one minute that the oil+gas+coal could be dropped for solar panels and mills without actually being carried by the sheer energy output of nuclear, you haven't quite taken a look at the numbers enough.
- pfdietz 6y ago
  He's right, and you are grossly overestimating your level of clue. You do not understand the degree to which you do not understand. Dunning-Kruger says hi. I suggest you try to fully flesh out your supposed argument, with as much self-skepticism as you can muster. Your enemy is your tendency to motivated reasoning, where you stop thinking when you get a conclusion you like. The symptom of this is that you present half-baked nonsense, which as he told you is easily debunked (or so vague as to not even need debunking.)
  - cmehdy 6y ago
    First, let's get back to the very beginning: my first message gave an explanation to what was pure antagonizing of the "pro-nuclear" people, and I mentioned that it's based on physics (which it is). You're stating a "he's right you're wrong" with an unsubstantiated singular paragraph while I've been giving dozens of elements of reflection over a half dozen posts. That's a bit rich, isn't it? You want something to substantiate a decent amount of what I'm saying? Here's one part[1]. Here's a case for why nuclear is the actual bridge for renewables[2]. Here's why renewables can't save the planet[3]. Reasons for environmentalists to look at nuclear[4]. And if you happen to care enough to actually read full reports, the IPCC did a lot of work and it's always good to try to read their reports with an open mind to collate the data[5]. Have a good day. [1] https://www.thelancet.com/article/S0140-6736(07)61253-7/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/article/S0140-6736(07)61253-7/full... [2] https://towardsdatascience.com/a-case-for-nuclear-bridging-the-route-to-renewables-with-low-carbon-energy-f0ad069a37ce?gi=187ce9ec4531 https://towardsdatascience.com/a-case-for-nuclear-bridging-t... [3] https://quillette.com/2019/02/27/why-renewables-cant-save-the-planet/ https://quillette.com/2019/02/27/why-renewables-cant-save-th... [4] https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2020/09/09/as-renewables-falter-environmentalists-stand-up-for-nuclear/#7c2b81b82d32 https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2020/09/09... [5] https://www.ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar6/ https://www.ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar6/