4 ms·

Some here appear to disagree, as if fossil fuels are taboo now. You can't say no to nuclear and fossil fuels, that's just reality for the next few decades. Afte

by _8j50 5y ago

Some here appear to disagree, as if fossil fuels are taboo now. You can't say no to nuclear and fossil fuels, that's just reality for the next few decades. After mid 2030's I can see coal dying and oil dwindling like coal is now. Even if somehow everyone adopted electric cars in the next 10 years fully that still leaves giant ships, planes, trucks and so much more applications that are simply uneconomical to displace within a short time even if the replacement's value is the old use's current market value. Fossil getting expensive long term means all those natural gas sites that covid shattered could now reopen because it is becoming profitable to take them out of ground. This benefits oil companies, but it also creates an opportunity for alternative energy conversion. Why heat houses in winter using expensive/price-unstable natural gas when solar and wind exist, except saying no to nuclear meant it can't even be used as a backup to solar/wind which they need for obvious reasons. Unless of course there is a new revolution in battery tech I don't know about

chrisjc 5y ago
I'd say some don't like to hear the truth. But I get it. It's painful and unpleasant to hear especially when it comes to having any sort of empathy for the demise of fossil fuels and all of the related industries. In addition to all the fossil fuel vehicles that you mentioned, you have also consider all of the industries and livelihoods as well (I'm sure you meant this implicitly). Those who work in oil-fields/sea-platforms, ICE factories, refinement equipment, and so on... If such a transition could happen over night, it would be devastating to so many industries, individuals... even entire economies and countries. While it's difficult to have any sympathy for the incumbent/legacy/ICE car manufactures being "unable to compete" with Tesla and new wave of Chinese EV manufactures, it can't be easy for any of them to transition without significant pain. Esp with all of the incentives, laws, etc... that have set up over the last century. You have billions of dollars of oil subsidies, franchise laws, worker unions, and so on. This where the government needs to step in. Fossil fuel subsidies need to be phased out. Training citizens with the knowledge and experience to work in these new industries needs to be provided. New incentives for manufactures to transition to sustainable methods of transportation need to be created. Old one eliminated. Ties to and influence of lobbies associated to legacy industries and fossil fuels need to be dismantled, even if the only way to go about that is through the creation of new, more powerful and influential lobbies that represent clean and progressive alternatives. I have my doubts that Tesla would be what it is today if they had played by the book, no matter how superior their technology is. Clean tech can't fill the void left by fossil fuels? Start promoting and evangelizing the advantages of nuclear options. I guess my point is it's going to be painful no matter how much people fetishize clean tech. Everyone is going to suffer in one way or another, but it has to happen and it needs to start now. I know that there are things being done about it already, but it's not enough.
- angelzen 5y ago
  > Fossil fuel subsidies need to be phased out. Fossil fuel subsidies are a social stability measure. There are going to be hard times when people can't afford fuel to heat their homes in winter, and have to endure lectures by the private-jet-to-next-climate-conference-crowd on how morally flawed they are for still affording to light up a candle at night.
  - mjmahone17 5y ago
    There’s a pretty simple solution there: move the fossil fuel subsidies to subsidize people directly. For instance by paying the first $N of their fuel bills (where N is determined based on something like the expected required energy for the month). This way people in smaller-than-average and more energy efficient homes don’t get slammed by high prices, but they can still save even more by reducing their energy needs.
worrycue 5y ago
Frankly, I wonder if we will ever be completely free from fossil fuels. Renewables have a few problems that need solving. What do you do when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing? Storage would fix that except we don't have a storage solution that scales to the levels we need and is widely implementable yet. What do you do if the sun decides not to shine and the wind decides not to blow for a long time? What do you do when you exhaust your energy stores? The only thing I can think of is restarting the natural gas and coal plants. Fossil fuel plants will have to be maintained (and staffed) as a backup. Nuclear will work too I guess but same problem, maintenance and staff. The only scenario I can see where we rely totally on renewables only is when we have a huge excess of renewable energy generation and a lot of extra energy storage such that it will buy us enough time to look for alternatives if the weather decides to go weird and deny us solar and wind power.
- DennisP 5y ago
  One solution: build enough nuclear to cover your nighttime load and run that 24/7, add enough solar to cover just the extra load during the day, and for remaining discrepancies with demand use either batteries or load-following by the nuclear plants, whichever is cheaper. A while back MIT had an electric grid cost simulator online, and that was the cheapest fossil-free combination I could find.
  - pfdietz 5y ago
    Did the simulator include hydrogen? In many places, hydrogen reduces the cost of a 100% renewable grid, vs. just using batteries for storage.
    - DennisP 5y ago
      Don't remember. Is anyone doing that in production? If so, what does it cost?
      - pfdietz 5y ago
        There is some underground hydrogen storage (used to smooth output to ammonia synthesis, for example), and some hydrogen pipelines (about 1000 miles in the US), and combustion turbines have been available for 30 or more years that will burn hydrogen. So all the parts are available. Electrolyzers need to be sufficiently cheap to work well with intermittent renewables, but their cost is dropping rapidly. Integrating preexisting technologies is the easiest and surest kind of innovation, even if they haven't all been brought together yet. There are cost estimates at the reference link at https://model.energy/ https://model.energy/ , along with projections of future costs.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

by _8j50 5y ago

chrisjc 5y ago

I'd say some don't like to hear the truth. But I get it. It's painful and unpleasant to hear especially when it comes to having any sort of empathy for the demise of fossil fuels and all of the related industries. In addition to all the fossil fuel vehicles that you mentioned, you have also consider all of the industries and livelihoods as well (I'm sure you meant this implicitly). Those who work in oil-fields/sea-platforms, ICE factories, refinement equipment, and so on... If such a transition could happen over night, it would be devastating to so many industries, individuals... even entire economies and countries. While it's difficult to have any sympathy for the incumbent/legacy/ICE car manufactures being "unable to compete" with Tesla and new wave of Chinese EV manufactures, it can't be easy for any of them to transition without significant pain. Esp with all of the incentives, laws, etc... that have set up over the last century. You have billions of dollars of oil subsidies, franchise laws, worker unions, and so on. This where the government needs to step in. Fossil fuel subsidies need to be phased out. Training citizens with the knowledge and experience to work in these new industries needs to be provided. New incentives for manufactures to transition to sustainable methods of transportation need to be created. Old one eliminated. Ties to and influence of lobbies associated to legacy industries and fossil fuels need to be dismantled, even if the only way to go about that is through the creation of new, more powerful and influential lobbies that represent clean and progressive alternatives. I have my doubts that Tesla would be what it is today if they had played by the book, no matter how superior their technology is. Clean tech can't fill the void left by fossil fuels? Start promoting and evangelizing the advantages of nuclear options. I guess my point is it's going to be painful no matter how much people fetishize clean tech. Everyone is going to suffer in one way or another, but it has to happen and it needs to start now. I know that there are things being done about it already, but it's not enough.

angelzen 5y ago
> Fossil fuel subsidies need to be phased out. Fossil fuel subsidies are a social stability measure. There are going to be hard times when people can't afford fuel to heat their homes in winter, and have to endure lectures by the private-jet-to-next-climate-conference-crowd on how morally flawed they are for still affording to light up a candle at night.
- mjmahone17 5y ago
  There’s a pretty simple solution there: move the fossil fuel subsidies to subsidize people directly. For instance by paying the first $N of their fuel bills (where N is determined based on something like the expected required energy for the month). This way people in smaller-than-average and more energy efficient homes don’t get slammed by high prices, but they can still save even more by reducing their energy needs.

worrycue 5y ago

Frankly, I wonder if we will ever be completely free from fossil fuels. Renewables have a few problems that need solving. What do you do when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing? Storage would fix that except we don't have a storage solution that scales to the levels we need and is widely implementable yet. What do you do if the sun decides not to shine and the wind decides not to blow for a long time? What do you do when you exhaust your energy stores? The only thing I can think of is restarting the natural gas and coal plants. Fossil fuel plants will have to be maintained (and staffed) as a backup. Nuclear will work too I guess but same problem, maintenance and staff. The only scenario I can see where we rely totally on renewables only is when we have a huge excess of renewable energy generation and a lot of extra energy storage such that it will buy us enough time to look for alternatives if the weather decides to go weird and deny us solar and wind power.

DennisP 5y ago
One solution: build enough nuclear to cover your nighttime load and run that 24/7, add enough solar to cover just the extra load during the day, and for remaining discrepancies with demand use either batteries or load-following by the nuclear plants, whichever is cheaper. A while back MIT had an electric grid cost simulator online, and that was the cheapest fossil-free combination I could find.
- pfdietz 5y ago
  Did the simulator include hydrogen? In many places, hydrogen reduces the cost of a 100% renewable grid, vs. just using batteries for storage.
  - DennisP 5y ago
    Don't remember. Is anyone doing that in production? If so, what does it cost?
    - pfdietz 5y ago
      There is some underground hydrogen storage (used to smooth output to ammonia synthesis, for example), and some hydrogen pipelines (about 1000 miles in the US), and combustion turbines have been available for 30 or more years that will burn hydrogen. So all the parts are available. Electrolyzers need to be sufficiently cheap to work well with intermittent renewables, but their cost is dropping rapidly. Integrating preexisting technologies is the easiest and surest kind of innovation, even if they haven't all been brought together yet. There are cost estimates at the reference link at https://model.energy/ https://model.energy/ , along with projections of future costs.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]