5 ms·

> In the end anyone who has a cellphone supports climate change. Correct. And to your point, China is building coal plants, not decomissioning them [0]. What

> In the end anyone who has a cellphone supports climate change. Correct. And to your point, China is building coal plants, not decomissioning them [0]. What people in the West fail to understand is that in order for society to improve (and currently, remain stable), you need cheap, reliable energy. Renewables—seemingly, the proposed alternatives (wind and solar)—are neither cheap nor reliable. They're also dependent on fossil fuels to be produced (and shipped, and cleaned, and de-iced, etc). One of the best things you can get behind if you really want to see CO2 emissions drop—which, if you dig into the data, a lot of it is based on models, not observations (which are dramatically below the models) [1]—is to promote nuclear energy and domestic manufacturing. The former is near carbon-free (in operation) and produces ample energy (and modern solutions are both safe and have limited/reusable waste). The latter promotes both national stability (people have jobs) and reduces unnecessary emissions in other countries and for transport of goods. [0] https://www.canadianenergycentre.ca/commentary-china-is-building-184-coal-plants-guess-what-that-will-do-to-carbon-emissions/ https://www.canadianenergycentre.ca/commentary-china-is-buil... [1] https://science.house.gov/imo/media/doc/Christy%20Testimony_0.pdf https://science.house.gov/imo/media/doc/Christy%20Testimony_...

curuinor 5y ago
the _numbers_ say nuclear energy costs about $150/MWh and utility-scale solar costs $24/MWh. Moreover, nuclear costs are going up even in places where they can and will ignore planning commission things like the PRC and solar costs are going down.
- rglover 5y ago
  Now address the reliability issue. Cost is only one factor.
  - curuinor 5y ago
    solar + batteries is $40/mwh?
    - rglover 5y ago
      Go further. How many batteries would it take to supply stable energy for the entire/majority of U.S. grids (and how long will those panels/batteries last)? How much energy will be produced relative to the number of solar panels that need to be installed? Is land conservation taken out of the equation in favor of panel installation? This line of questioning was my "mind blow." It turns out, there are technological solutions, but they don't scale to meet demand (and if/when they do, it's inconsistent). And to boot, they're an aesthetic nightmare.
      - nate_meurer 5y ago
        Everything humans build is accused of being an "aesthetic nightmare". Houses, roads, farms, feed lots, cities, etc. This is not a good argument against building important infrastructure.
        rglover 5y ago
        When you consider the number that are required to supply our entire grid reliably (if even possible), it is. The only way to do it and maintain capacity is to use renewables alongside things like nuclear (or stay with fossil fuels and adapt our living habits). Don't forget about the turtles, too: https://thehill.com/changing-america/sustainability/environment/477567-building-the-largest-solar-farm-in-the-us-would https://thehill.com/changing-america/sustainability/environm... It's not a question of morality, but of mathematics. Can we sustainably and consistently produce enough energy using those methods long-term? If the answer is "no," fooling ourselves into believing it's "yes" for the sake of ego/emotional pacification is setting us up for failure. I do believe the answer may be yes eventually, but on the current doomer timeline (always shifting but afaik the current doomsday is in ~12 years), the answer will remain "no." Edit: rough solar panel efficiency stats https://archive.ph/Vh1Qj https://archive.ph/Vh1Qj
    - zdragnar 5y ago
      Last winter we didnt see the sun for 6 weeks, and didnt have enough wind to overcome the cost of keeping wind turbine blades de-iced. Batteries simply are not an appropriate solution to the problem. We would need to make massive investments in high voltage DC lines across the country, dumping tons of CO2 into steel and concrete for rare usage patterns.
Retric 5y ago
China dropped from 80% coal in 2010 to 57.7% in 2019. China’s exponential increase in electricity production means they don’t have nearly as many old coal power plants, but looking at what their building today is very promising.
- rglover 5y ago
  And? Re: China, there's clearly not an effort to move away from coal if they're constructing new plants. The percentages may be less, but if the overarching thesis is to limit things that produce CO2 altogether, this statistic is irrelevant when contrasted with their actions.
  - chiefalchemist 5y ago
    The percentage might be lower but if the whole is expanding enough the lower percentage might be greater that the previous.
  - Retric 5y ago
    > And Coal power plants age. As their power demand has skyrocketed there are currently few 40+ year old coal power stations to be decommissioned. Looking at say 2050 the existing stock will mostly be replaced by whatever ratio they built between 2010 and 2050. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_by_country Solar in China went from 78 GW in 2016 to 254 GW 2020. The US had 40 GW of solar in 2016 and 75 GW in 2020.
    - rglover 5y ago
      Replaced by other coal power stations, though, not alternative sources. So again, not an incorrect statistic, but irrelevant in the context of the goal of reducing emissions globally (and the associated moral arguments/intimidations). Or does China get a pass because they produce goods cheaply for Westerner's?
      - Retric 5y ago
AlmaElma 5y ago
> (and modern solutions are both safe and have limited/reusable waste). can you point me to something trustworthy that proves this point? I am not too much into the topic of nuclear energy but the last time I spent a night or two reading up on it the waste part still felt like a huge drawback.
- rglover 5y ago
  The most trustworthy research I've read [0]/watched [1] is by Gwyneth Cravens. [0] https://www.amazon.com/Power-Save-World-Nuclear-Energy/dp/0307385876 https://www.amazon.com/Power-Save-World-Nuclear-Energy/dp/03... [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RKtIs10R6Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RKtIs10R6Q (hosted by the Long Now Foundation) Though a bit thin on info, this page from the DoE is interesting (links to some more in-depth stuff that I haven't read yet): https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-nuclear-fuel https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-....

curuinor 5y ago

the _numbers_ say nuclear energy costs about $150/MWh and utility-scale solar costs $24/MWh. Moreover, nuclear costs are going up even in places where they can and will ignore planning commission things like the PRC and solar costs are going down.

rglover 5y ago
Now address the reliability issue. Cost is only one factor.
- curuinor 5y ago
  solar + batteries is $40/mwh?
  - rglover 5y ago
    Go further. How many batteries would it take to supply stable energy for the entire/majority of U.S. grids (and how long will those panels/batteries last)? How much energy will be produced relative to the number of solar panels that need to be installed? Is land conservation taken out of the equation in favor of panel installation? This line of questioning was my "mind blow." It turns out, there are technological solutions, but they don't scale to meet demand (and if/when they do, it's inconsistent). And to boot, they're an aesthetic nightmare.
    - nate_meurer 5y ago
      Everything humans build is accused of being an "aesthetic nightmare". Houses, roads, farms, feed lots, cities, etc. This is not a good argument against building important infrastructure.
      - rglover 5y ago
        When you consider the number that are required to supply our entire grid reliably (if even possible), it is. The only way to do it and maintain capacity is to use renewables alongside things like nuclear (or stay with fossil fuels and adapt our living habits). Don't forget about the turtles, too: https://thehill.com/changing-america/sustainability/environment/477567-building-the-largest-solar-farm-in-the-us-would https://thehill.com/changing-america/sustainability/environm... It's not a question of morality, but of mathematics. Can we sustainably and consistently produce enough energy using those methods long-term? If the answer is "no," fooling ourselves into believing it's "yes" for the sake of ego/emotional pacification is setting us up for failure. I do believe the answer may be yes eventually, but on the current doomer timeline (always shifting but afaik the current doomsday is in ~12 years), the answer will remain "no." Edit: rough solar panel efficiency stats https://archive.ph/Vh1Qj https://archive.ph/Vh1Qj
  - zdragnar 5y ago
    Last winter we didnt see the sun for 6 weeks, and didnt have enough wind to overcome the cost of keeping wind turbine blades de-iced. Batteries simply are not an appropriate solution to the problem. We would need to make massive investments in high voltage DC lines across the country, dumping tons of CO2 into steel and concrete for rare usage patterns.

Retric 5y ago

China dropped from 80% coal in 2010 to 57.7% in 2019. China’s exponential increase in electricity production means they don’t have nearly as many old coal power plants, but looking at what their building today is very promising.

rglover 5y ago
And? Re: China, there's clearly not an effort to move away from coal if they're constructing new plants. The percentages may be less, but if the overarching thesis is to limit things that produce CO2 altogether, this statistic is irrelevant when contrasted with their actions.
- chiefalchemist 5y ago
  The percentage might be lower but if the whole is expanding enough the lower percentage might be greater that the previous.
- Retric 5y ago
  > And Coal power plants age. As their power demand has skyrocketed there are currently few 40+ year old coal power stations to be decommissioned. Looking at say 2050 the existing stock will mostly be replaced by whatever ratio they built between 2010 and 2050. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_by_country Solar in China went from 78 GW in 2016 to 254 GW 2020. The US had 40 GW of solar in 2016 and 75 GW in 2020.
  - rglover 5y ago
    Replaced by other coal power stations, though, not alternative sources. So again, not an incorrect statistic, but irrelevant in the context of the goal of reducing emissions globally (and the associated moral arguments/intimidations). Or does China get a pass because they produce goods cheaply for Westerner's?
    - Retric 5y ago

AlmaElma 5y ago

> (and modern solutions are both safe and have limited/reusable waste). can you point me to something trustworthy that proves this point? I am not too much into the topic of nuclear energy but the last time I spent a night or two reading up on it the waste part still felt like a huge drawback.

rglover 5y ago
The most trustworthy research I've read [0]/watched [1] is by Gwyneth Cravens. [0] https://www.amazon.com/Power-Save-World-Nuclear-Energy/dp/0307385876 https://www.amazon.com/Power-Save-World-Nuclear-Energy/dp/03... [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RKtIs10R6Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RKtIs10R6Q (hosted by the Long Now Foundation) Though a bit thin on info, this page from the DoE is interesting (links to some more in-depth stuff that I haven't read yet): https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-nuclear-fuel https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-....