4 ms·

Why leave out the cost of fossil fuel power sources throughout history? And deaths caused by fossil fuel emissions which is in the tens of thousands per year.

by jboog 6y ago

Why leave out the cost of fossil fuel power sources throughout history? And deaths caused by fossil fuel emissions which is in the tens of thousands per year. Fukushima and Chernobyl combined are a tiny fraction of FF emissions/deaths/costs.

pfdietz 6y ago
We leave that out because it's irrelevant to whether nuclear or renewables should be used to replace fossil fuels.
- jboog 6y ago
  it is literally impossible for renewables to replace fossil fuels given current technology and anything on the horizon for at least the next decade, probably much longer. So that leaves...Nuclear. So again, why are you fear-mongering about how "dangerous" nuclear is when it's a tiny tiny fraction of the real danger of fossil fuels? I thought climate change was like an urgent crisis or something....?
- Stupulous 6y ago
  I think the question is whether renewables should replace nuclear or fossil fuels first. The top level comment isn't talking about replacing fossil fuels with nuclear.
  - jboog 6y ago
    Renewables CANNOT replace nuclear OR fossil fuels. It's literally impossible based on current or any near-term technology. We are being told on the one hand that climate change is an existential threat to tens (hundreds?) of millions of people. Oh but actually we can just refuse to decarbonize our energy production because maybe someday 10, 20, 50 or 100 years from now there's a true "green" renewable energy I guess.
    - pfdietz 6y ago
      > Renewables CANNOT replace nuclear OR fossil fuels. It's literally impossible based on current or any near-term technology. Nonsense. It's clear they can, although it's more than just using Li-ion batteries.
      - jboog 6y ago
        You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. There is no way that renewable energy can replace baseload power generation of FF and natural gas given current technology. All you have is magical thinking and science fiction.
        pfdietz 6y ago
        No sir, YOU have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Note that you are not claiming that they could be competitive, but that they could not do it at all, regardless of price. This is clearly nonsense.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        jboog 6y ago
        Please feel free to point me to any developed country that has successfully replaced fossil fuel and nuclear baseload generation with renewables and energy storage. I'll save you the time. No one has done it. And no, not because evil mustachio-twirling Koch brothers are pulling the strings. Because the technology does not exist at scale to do this. Or do you want to continue with your speculative science fiction daydreams?
        bob29 6y ago
        https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26404232 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26404232
        6y ago
- sir_bearington 6y ago
  It is highly relevant, because renewables are not presently capable of replacing fossil fuels. And they won't be until massive energy storage systems, literally thousands of times better than what we have now, is developed. California, Hawaii, and other places are already hitting saturated electricity markets during the daytime. Companies aren't starting to install storage, as renewable evangelists promised.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > Companies aren't starting to install storage, as renewable evangelists promised. Yes, they are, at least in California which has an aggressive storage policy: https://blog.ucsusa.org/guest-commentary/five-facts-about-energy-storage-that-every-californian-should-know https://blog.ucsusa.org/guest-commentary/five-facts-about-en...
    - sir_bearington 6y ago
      Th fact that California only has 1.5 GWh of storage is precisely the reason why wind and solar cannot form the primary source of energy. Who cares if the state met it's storage goals if the storage goals were tiny?
      - dragonwriter 6y ago
        That's not 1.5GWh energy stored, it's 1.5GW output from storage systems (output is the key metric because the storage systems aren't very rapid discharge, and the key factor in adequacy isn't how much energy is stored but how much power can be delivered from storage when other systems aren't delivering. And it's not just about meeting current targets but the rapid pace of new storage coming online.
        jboog 6y ago
        Absolutely none of this changes the undeniable fact that "storage" is incapable of meeting the demands of baseload power generation currently provided by Nuclear and fossil fuels. We aren't anywhere close and won't be for many years which is why it's so absolutely ridiculous how green activists implicitly endorse using coal, natural gas and other fossil fuels which kill tens of thousands of people every year and are cooking the planet, when we have nuclear, which kills no one, and does not contribute substantively to climate change. It's almost like the activists care more about posturing and magical thinking than they do "saving the planet"...

by jboog 6y ago

pfdietz 6y ago

We leave that out because it's irrelevant to whether nuclear or renewables should be used to replace fossil fuels.

jboog 6y ago
it is literally impossible for renewables to replace fossil fuels given current technology and anything on the horizon for at least the next decade, probably much longer. So that leaves...Nuclear. So again, why are you fear-mongering about how "dangerous" nuclear is when it's a tiny tiny fraction of the real danger of fossil fuels? I thought climate change was like an urgent crisis or something....?
Stupulous 6y ago
I think the question is whether renewables should replace nuclear or fossil fuels first. The top level comment isn't talking about replacing fossil fuels with nuclear.
- jboog 6y ago
  Renewables CANNOT replace nuclear OR fossil fuels. It's literally impossible based on current or any near-term technology. We are being told on the one hand that climate change is an existential threat to tens (hundreds?) of millions of people. Oh but actually we can just refuse to decarbonize our energy production because maybe someday 10, 20, 50 or 100 years from now there's a true "green" renewable energy I guess.
  - pfdietz 6y ago
    > Renewables CANNOT replace nuclear OR fossil fuels. It's literally impossible based on current or any near-term technology. Nonsense. It's clear they can, although it's more than just using Li-ion batteries.
    - jboog 6y ago
      You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. There is no way that renewable energy can replace baseload power generation of FF and natural gas given current technology. All you have is magical thinking and science fiction.
      - pfdietz 6y ago
        No sir, YOU have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Note that you are not claiming that they could be competitive, but that they could not do it at all, regardless of price. This is clearly nonsense.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        jboog 6y ago
        Please feel free to point me to any developed country that has successfully replaced fossil fuel and nuclear baseload generation with renewables and energy storage. I'll save you the time. No one has done it. And no, not because evil mustachio-twirling Koch brothers are pulling the strings. Because the technology does not exist at scale to do this. Or do you want to continue with your speculative science fiction daydreams?
        bob29 6y ago
        https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26404232 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26404232
        6y ago
sir_bearington 6y ago
It is highly relevant, because renewables are not presently capable of replacing fossil fuels. And they won't be until massive energy storage systems, literally thousands of times better than what we have now, is developed. California, Hawaii, and other places are already hitting saturated electricity markets during the daytime. Companies aren't starting to install storage, as renewable evangelists promised.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Companies aren't starting to install storage, as renewable evangelists promised. Yes, they are, at least in California which has an aggressive storage policy: https://blog.ucsusa.org/guest-commentary/five-facts-about-energy-storage-that-every-californian-should-know https://blog.ucsusa.org/guest-commentary/five-facts-about-en...
  - sir_bearington 6y ago
    Th fact that California only has 1.5 GWh of storage is precisely the reason why wind and solar cannot form the primary source of energy. Who cares if the state met it's storage goals if the storage goals were tiny?
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      That's not 1.5GWh energy stored, it's 1.5GW output from storage systems (output is the key metric because the storage systems aren't very rapid discharge, and the key factor in adequacy isn't how much energy is stored but how much power can be delivered from storage when other systems aren't delivering. And it's not just about meeting current targets but the rapid pace of new storage coming online.
      - jboog 6y ago
        Absolutely none of this changes the undeniable fact that "storage" is incapable of meeting the demands of baseload power generation currently provided by Nuclear and fossil fuels. We aren't anywhere close and won't be for many years which is why it's so absolutely ridiculous how green activists implicitly endorse using coal, natural gas and other fossil fuels which kill tens of thousands of people every year and are cooking the planet, when we have nuclear, which kills no one, and does not contribute substantively to climate change. It's almost like the activists care more about posturing and magical thinking than they do "saving the planet"...