3 ms·

Renewables are very reliable if you winter-proof them, the same as other sources. The problem at the moment is that none of the sources for Texas was prepared

Renewables are very reliable if you winter-proof them, the same as other sources. The problem at the moment is that none of the sources for Texas was prepared for a cold winter, renewable or otherwise. Quebec is 99% renewable[0] (95% hydro, 4% wind) and runs through the coldest of winter just fine! > With over 40 853 MW of installed capacity, hydroelectric stations generate about 95% of Quebec’s electricity. > Wind is the 2nd largest source of electricity generation in Quebec. In 2018, wind capacity reached 4 096 MW and accounted for 4% of the province’s generating capacity [0] https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/provincial-territorial-energy-profiles/provincial-territorial-energy-profiles-quebec.html https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/pr...

jorblumesea 6y ago
Also fair to note that fossil fuel plants also froze and were unable to operate. It's not even a renewable or not question. It's just whether your grid has been properly hardened against the elements.
- cbmuser 6y ago
  Nuclear works under nearly all environmental conditions. Heck, we have nuclear powered energy sources in space. Russia built a floating nuclear power plant in the remote city of Pevek in the polar circle where hardly any wind turbine or solar panel will be able to generate sufficient amounts of electricity.
  - akvadrako 6y ago
    I didn't check but I did read somewhere that one nuclear plant also shutdown in texas because a sensor froze. The issue isn't about the type of fuel, it's planning for cold weather events.
pstrateman 6y ago
>Quebec is 99% renewable[0] (95% hydro, 4% wind) and runs through the coldest of winter just fine! Comparing hydro to wind and solar is unreasonable. Hydro is a battery, wind and solar are not.
- harg 6y ago
  I think you’re confusing hydro with pumped storage. Hydro is easily comparable with wind/solar assuming the scheme has a steady inflow (river, rain, snow etc)
jstrong 6y ago
I completely agree you can build hardy solar/wind generation (i.e. runs in winter), however, the sun still sets each day, and wind is intermittent and unpredictable. until there is a revolution in battery technology, relying on those two sources (without others types of generation) will result in large electricity price spikes.
cbmuser 6y ago
> Quebec is 99% renewable[0] (95% hydro, 4% wind) and runs through the coldest of winter just fine! Hydro has huge impacts on the environment and can only be built if you have mountains and large amounts of water. Oh, and it’s one of the dealiest sources of energy. The Banqiao dam disaster in 1975 killed as much as 250.000 people while there are less than 50 deaths attributed to Chernobyl according to UNSCEAR/WHO.
- kumarvvr 6y ago
  Chernobyl may have less deaths, but it affected the health of hundreds of thousands. If you think about the danger of renewable sources of energy, know that there is not alternative because we have no alternative planet. Betwwwn 250,000 accidental deaths and billions of suffering people, I choose the former.
  - zbrozek 6y ago
    But where are the billions suffering from nuclear power? As you point out, even with a generous accounting, Chernobyl was orders of magnitude less than that.
    - kumarvvr 6y ago
      There are many myths about Nuclear power. 1. Chernobyl was an old, unsafe design, and the disaster was human error. There are better safer designs. 2. The true toll of Chernobyl is the hundreds of thousands of people killed due to pollution from coal plants (52000 per year in US alone). Lives that could be saved if countries had shifted to Nuclear more aggressively. I don't know why you think billions are suffering from Nuclear plants. About 20% of total power generation in US is from Nuclear. Can you tell me how many millions are suffering from it?
      - zbrozek 6y ago
        > Betwwwn 250,000 accidental deaths and billions of suffering people, I choose the former. Those were your words, so I'm asking you about the billions.

jorblumesea 6y ago

Also fair to note that fossil fuel plants also froze and were unable to operate. It's not even a renewable or not question. It's just whether your grid has been properly hardened against the elements.

cbmuser 6y ago
Nuclear works under nearly all environmental conditions. Heck, we have nuclear powered energy sources in space. Russia built a floating nuclear power plant in the remote city of Pevek in the polar circle where hardly any wind turbine or solar panel will be able to generate sufficient amounts of electricity.
- akvadrako 6y ago
  I didn't check but I did read somewhere that one nuclear plant also shutdown in texas because a sensor froze. The issue isn't about the type of fuel, it's planning for cold weather events.

pstrateman 6y ago

>Quebec is 99% renewable[0] (95% hydro, 4% wind) and runs through the coldest of winter just fine! Comparing hydro to wind and solar is unreasonable. Hydro is a battery, wind and solar are not.

harg 6y ago
I think you’re confusing hydro with pumped storage. Hydro is easily comparable with wind/solar assuming the scheme has a steady inflow (river, rain, snow etc)

jstrong 6y ago

I completely agree you can build hardy solar/wind generation (i.e. runs in winter), however, the sun still sets each day, and wind is intermittent and unpredictable. until there is a revolution in battery technology, relying on those two sources (without others types of generation) will result in large electricity price spikes.

cbmuser 6y ago

> Quebec is 99% renewable[0] (95% hydro, 4% wind) and runs through the coldest of winter just fine! Hydro has huge impacts on the environment and can only be built if you have mountains and large amounts of water. Oh, and it’s one of the dealiest sources of energy. The Banqiao dam disaster in 1975 killed as much as 250.000 people while there are less than 50 deaths attributed to Chernobyl according to UNSCEAR/WHO.

kumarvvr 6y ago
Chernobyl may have less deaths, but it affected the health of hundreds of thousands. If you think about the danger of renewable sources of energy, know that there is not alternative because we have no alternative planet. Betwwwn 250,000 accidental deaths and billions of suffering people, I choose the former.
- zbrozek 6y ago
  But where are the billions suffering from nuclear power? As you point out, even with a generous accounting, Chernobyl was orders of magnitude less than that.
  - kumarvvr 6y ago
    There are many myths about Nuclear power. 1. Chernobyl was an old, unsafe design, and the disaster was human error. There are better safer designs. 2. The true toll of Chernobyl is the hundreds of thousands of people killed due to pollution from coal plants (52000 per year in US alone). Lives that could be saved if countries had shifted to Nuclear more aggressively. I don't know why you think billions are suffering from Nuclear plants. About 20% of total power generation in US is from Nuclear. Can you tell me how many millions are suffering from it?
    - zbrozek 6y ago
      > Betwwwn 250,000 accidental deaths and billions of suffering people, I choose the former. Those were your words, so I'm asking you about the billions.