4 ms·

> No you didn't. Yes, we did. Your nitpicking over the "right" way to count electricity generation and consumption doesn't matter: the graph you linked still s

> No you didn't. Yes, we did. Your nitpicking over the "right" way to count electricity generation and consumption doesn't matter: the graph you linked still shows around 12 percent fossil fuel generation for 2019, it's less now, and it's been replaced with renewables. Quibble over the figures if you like, but the trend is clear. > And let's not understate the geography of Scotland Yes, all countries have different strengths and weaknesses for renewable. And? > Also, Scotland is a tiny region with a population akin to a city Roughly the same population as the average US state. Anyway, what do you care about the "global scale"? The US is not a renewable energy role model to anyone. > >70% renewable in pretty much every case is a result of hydro power or... Hydro is renewable, so I don't get your complaint here > in the recent election (in Maine)...because why import hydro when you can power your state on good intentions. According to wikipedia, Maine gets 75% electricity from renewables, which is among the highest of any US state, so they seem an odd example to pick. What's more, with a population of just 1.34 million, Maine is clearly a complete irrelevance on a global scale, right?

macspoofing 6y ago
>Your nitpicking over the "right" way to count electricity generation and consumption doesn't matter It matters. And it isn't a 'nitpick'. You honestly don't think it is worth clarifying what the 90% refers to because I can guarantee you that a lot of people who read your comment automatically assumed that Scotland consumed 90% of its energy requirements from renewable sources - which it did not.. not even close. It's also important for policy. You can setup a 1TW solar array, and it wouldn't be able to power one house at night. And that's the point here because we're trying to move from fossil fuels and the question is: can wind and solar do it? And the answer is no. Nuclear can do it. Hydro and geothermal can do it (but those are geography dependent). >The US is not a renewable energy role model to anyone. No. But Ontario is. We're one of the world leaders for carbon emissions from electricity generation and we are because of nuclear and hydro. France is ahead of Scotland too, and that's solely because of nuclear. >According to wikipedia, Maine gets 75% electricity from renewables, which is among the highest of any US state, so they seem an odd example to pick. Again, not from solar and wind. It's hydro. Whenever these high numbers are mentioned it's always effin hydro. The policy here was extending hydro transmission and crazy people trying to block it (meaning that capacity would be replaced by natural gas, not wind, not solar because they can't). >What's more, with a population of just 1.34 million, Maine is clearly a complete irrelevance on a global scale, right? It is irrelevant. We can't scale hydro to that level globally.
- phaemon 6y ago
  It is a nitpick. The fact is that even counting your way, it's around 10% from fossil fuels. That's been achieved without expanding nuclear capability. It is renewable that has replaced fossil fuels here. Yes, Scotland also exports renewable energy. That's a good thing. > can wind and solar do it? And the answer is no. Nuclear can do it. Can wind and solar and hydro and geothermal do it? The answer is Yes. There's no need for more horrifically expensive nuclear. > We can't scale hydro to that level globally. No-one's asking you to. If you're all renewable already, good for you. If you're not, get your own house in order before criticizing others. But stop claiming that what's already being done can't be done.
  - macspoofing 6y ago
    >It is a nitpick. The fact is that even counting your way, it's around 10% from fossil fuels. Come on now. The 90% value was dishonest and required clarification when presented (which you didn't do) and a cynical perspective could argue you meant it to be misleading. The original argument I made is that solar and wind can't do it. You argued it can by pointing that Scotland is using 90% renewables. But we established that there is some nuance to this because Scotland wasn't consuming 90% renewable energy, and also it's a red-herring because even though I argued against wind/solar specifically, you talked about renewables which include things like hydro. I never claimed hydro cannot replace fossil fuels. I know it can. >There's no need for more horrifically expensive nuclear. I 100% agree!! If your geography allows for hydro and geothermal (even if paired with Wind and Solar) - sure! Go nuts! No nuclear is needed! Iceland will never need Nuclear power, for example. My province of Ontario could probably replace Nuclear with Hydro from Quebec as well. So hydro and geothermal do work very well. They can also complement wind/solar by providing base-load and satisfy 'peaker' requirements (i.e. scaled down when lots of wind and solar, and scaled up when not). But notice, the critical bit that makes wind/solar work is AVAILABILITY of hydro and geothermal because hydro/geothermal provides very stable and predictable output and can ramp up or down based on availability of wind/solar. And if your region is blessed with an abundance of either, you may not even need to bother with wind or solar at all. The problem for wind and solar is that hydro is not a scalable solution because it is geography dependent and relatively few places could scale out hydro infrastructure. So if you don't already have access to hydro or geothermal (which is the case for most places on earth) what the heck are you supposed to do?????? Well ... I'll tell what you do, you invest in natural gas and coal, like Germany is doing and every other region that does not have access to hydro and has a large wind/solar investment. >If you're not, get your own house in order before criticizing others. Ontario has some of the lowest emissions in the world. Lower than Scotland. So ... when it comes to energy generation, my house is in order. [1] [1] https://www.electricitymap.org/zone/CA-ON https://www.electricitymap.org/zone/CA-ON

macspoofing 6y ago

>Your nitpicking over the "right" way to count electricity generation and consumption doesn't matter It matters. And it isn't a 'nitpick'. You honestly don't think it is worth clarifying what the 90% refers to because I can guarantee you that a lot of people who read your comment automatically assumed that Scotland consumed 90% of its energy requirements from renewable sources - which it did not.. not even close. It's also important for policy. You can setup a 1TW solar array, and it wouldn't be able to power one house at night. And that's the point here because we're trying to move from fossil fuels and the question is: can wind and solar do it? And the answer is no. Nuclear can do it. Hydro and geothermal can do it (but those are geography dependent). >The US is not a renewable energy role model to anyone. No. But Ontario is. We're one of the world leaders for carbon emissions from electricity generation and we are because of nuclear and hydro. France is ahead of Scotland too, and that's solely because of nuclear. >According to wikipedia, Maine gets 75% electricity from renewables, which is among the highest of any US state, so they seem an odd example to pick. Again, not from solar and wind. It's hydro. Whenever these high numbers are mentioned it's always effin hydro. The policy here was extending hydro transmission and crazy people trying to block it (meaning that capacity would be replaced by natural gas, not wind, not solar because they can't). >What's more, with a population of just 1.34 million, Maine is clearly a complete irrelevance on a global scale, right? It is irrelevant. We can't scale hydro to that level globally.

phaemon 6y ago
It is a nitpick. The fact is that even counting your way, it's around 10% from fossil fuels. That's been achieved without expanding nuclear capability. It is renewable that has replaced fossil fuels here. Yes, Scotland also exports renewable energy. That's a good thing. > can wind and solar do it? And the answer is no. Nuclear can do it. Can wind and solar and hydro and geothermal do it? The answer is Yes. There's no need for more horrifically expensive nuclear. > We can't scale hydro to that level globally. No-one's asking you to. If you're all renewable already, good for you. If you're not, get your own house in order before criticizing others. But stop claiming that what's already being done can't be done.
- macspoofing 6y ago
  >It is a nitpick. The fact is that even counting your way, it's around 10% from fossil fuels. Come on now. The 90% value was dishonest and required clarification when presented (which you didn't do) and a cynical perspective could argue you meant it to be misleading. The original argument I made is that solar and wind can't do it. You argued it can by pointing that Scotland is using 90% renewables. But we established that there is some nuance to this because Scotland wasn't consuming 90% renewable energy, and also it's a red-herring because even though I argued against wind/solar specifically, you talked about renewables which include things like hydro. I never claimed hydro cannot replace fossil fuels. I know it can. >There's no need for more horrifically expensive nuclear. I 100% agree!! If your geography allows for hydro and geothermal (even if paired with Wind and Solar) - sure! Go nuts! No nuclear is needed! Iceland will never need Nuclear power, for example. My province of Ontario could probably replace Nuclear with Hydro from Quebec as well. So hydro and geothermal do work very well. They can also complement wind/solar by providing base-load and satisfy 'peaker' requirements (i.e. scaled down when lots of wind and solar, and scaled up when not). But notice, the critical bit that makes wind/solar work is AVAILABILITY of hydro and geothermal because hydro/geothermal provides very stable and predictable output and can ramp up or down based on availability of wind/solar. And if your region is blessed with an abundance of either, you may not even need to bother with wind or solar at all. The problem for wind and solar is that hydro is not a scalable solution because it is geography dependent and relatively few places could scale out hydro infrastructure. So if you don't already have access to hydro or geothermal (which is the case for most places on earth) what the heck are you supposed to do?????? Well ... I'll tell what you do, you invest in natural gas and coal, like Germany is doing and every other region that does not have access to hydro and has a large wind/solar investment. >If you're not, get your own house in order before criticizing others. Ontario has some of the lowest emissions in the world. Lower than Scotland. So ... when it comes to energy generation, my house is in order. [1] [1] https://www.electricitymap.org/zone/CA-ON https://www.electricitymap.org/zone/CA-ON