4 ms·

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 re

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
- phaemon 6y ago
  Then "good for you", as I already said. > The 90% value was dishonest No, the 90% value is more honest since exports reduce CO2 emissions just as much as domestic usage, but you prefer to cherry-pick the lowest number you can. I accepted your figures because even with them the point remains that Scotland has replaced its fossil fuel elec with renewable. A point you keep trying to evade. > what the heck are you supposed to do?????? Where exactly are you talking about now? I keep hearing that there are all these countries or states that have no ability to deploy renewables due to their geography, but I've never seen one actually specified. Where is it? > you invest in natural gas and coal, like Germany is doing Germany is investing in renewables and has increased its share from them each year.
  - macspoofing 6y ago
    >the 90% value is more honest since exports reduce CO2 emissions just as much as domestic usage Let's torture this a little more. The reason why it's an important distinction because today we do not have a model of sizable country (and let's include Scotland in that group as well) that powers their economy by wind and solar. Scotland is not an example of that. There is no example of such a nation. >I keep hearing that there are all these countries or states that have no ability to deploy renewables due to their geography Come on, don't be obtuse. Almost every country that doesn't have hydro today will not have hydro tomorrow. Almost every country that has deployed hydro, will not have more hydro tomorrow. Why? Because, at least in the developed world, we've dammed every river that could be dammed over the last century. So no, you can't just rely on hydro as a solution to wind/solar base load problem - I wish it were so, but it isn't. So pick any country that doesn't have any sizable hydro deployment, and that country is an example you're seeking. >Germany is investing in renewables and has increased its share from them each year. They are also spending billions to build natural gas pipelines to Russia. What does that say about their confidence in wind/solar?

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

phaemon 6y ago
Then "good for you", as I already said. > The 90% value was dishonest No, the 90% value is more honest since exports reduce CO2 emissions just as much as domestic usage, but you prefer to cherry-pick the lowest number you can. I accepted your figures because even with them the point remains that Scotland has replaced its fossil fuel elec with renewable. A point you keep trying to evade. > what the heck are you supposed to do?????? Where exactly are you talking about now? I keep hearing that there are all these countries or states that have no ability to deploy renewables due to their geography, but I've never seen one actually specified. Where is it? > you invest in natural gas and coal, like Germany is doing Germany is investing in renewables and has increased its share from them each year.
- macspoofing 6y ago
  >the 90% value is more honest since exports reduce CO2 emissions just as much as domestic usage Let's torture this a little more. The reason why it's an important distinction because today we do not have a model of sizable country (and let's include Scotland in that group as well) that powers their economy by wind and solar. Scotland is not an example of that. There is no example of such a nation. >I keep hearing that there are all these countries or states that have no ability to deploy renewables due to their geography Come on, don't be obtuse. Almost every country that doesn't have hydro today will not have hydro tomorrow. Almost every country that has deployed hydro, will not have more hydro tomorrow. Why? Because, at least in the developed world, we've dammed every river that could be dammed over the last century. So no, you can't just rely on hydro as a solution to wind/solar base load problem - I wish it were so, but it isn't. So pick any country that doesn't have any sizable hydro deployment, and that country is an example you're seeking. >Germany is investing in renewables and has increased its share from them each year. They are also spending billions to build natural gas pipelines to Russia. What does that say about their confidence in wind/solar?