3 ms·

150 years ago there was no energy grid anywhere in the world. We've come a long way since then. You seem really confident that a renewable grid will never happe

150 years ago there was no energy grid anywhere in the world. We've come a long way since then. You seem really confident that a renewable grid will never happen. Do you have credible projections on storage and deployment costs that indicate asymptotic bounds on cost that are above the cost of similar projections for comparable nuclear?

ClumsyPilot 6y ago
I am not saying it won't happen. You are free to argue we should be paying more for energy so its sustainable, but unless you are going to bring some serious evidence you can't just claim the problem is easilly sorted and wind + solar grid would be cheaper than nuclear. Current and projected cost of storage is relatively high, the most cost efficient storage is hydro and compressed air, they are not showing any kind of fast decrease in cost. Maybe there is potential in energy grids that span continents and have large over-capacity - then you dont need much storage. I am assuming we are talking about imminent future, in 50 years maybe math is different, but thats too late for climate change.
- imtringued 6y ago
  It doesn't make sense to invest into storage until you are well beyond 80% renewable energy. If we had 80% renewables today then climate change wouldn't be as big of a problem as it is right now, so the next best thing is to build more renewables until we actually hit bottlenecks. Nuclear power has always been a government funded energy source so unless government policy changes and UK orders 50-100 of these power plants by 2050 then nuclear power is not going to make any difference. Convincing all governments on the planet to invest into nuclear power is extremely unlikely. Without the introduction of a CO2 tax nuclear power will always look bad vs coal and coal will always look bad vs renewables and from what I can tell the vast majority of people don't want a CO2 tax even though it would be the best solution for climate change.

ClumsyPilot 6y ago

I am not saying it won't happen. You are free to argue we should be paying more for energy so its sustainable, but unless you are going to bring some serious evidence you can't just claim the problem is easilly sorted and wind + solar grid would be cheaper than nuclear. Current and projected cost of storage is relatively high, the most cost efficient storage is hydro and compressed air, they are not showing any kind of fast decrease in cost. Maybe there is potential in energy grids that span continents and have large over-capacity - then you dont need much storage. I am assuming we are talking about imminent future, in 50 years maybe math is different, but thats too late for climate change.

imtringued 6y ago
It doesn't make sense to invest into storage until you are well beyond 80% renewable energy. If we had 80% renewables today then climate change wouldn't be as big of a problem as it is right now, so the next best thing is to build more renewables until we actually hit bottlenecks. Nuclear power has always been a government funded energy source so unless government policy changes and UK orders 50-100 of these power plants by 2050 then nuclear power is not going to make any difference. Convincing all governments on the planet to invest into nuclear power is extremely unlikely. Without the introduction of a CO2 tax nuclear power will always look bad vs coal and coal will always look bad vs renewables and from what I can tell the vast majority of people don't want a CO2 tax even though it would be the best solution for climate change.