4 ms·

See, you can't "believe in climate change" and be against the cleanest, most abundant energy source we have: nuclear. It's just not a logically consistent posit

by m0zg 5y ago

See, you can't "believe in climate change" and be against the cleanest, most abundant energy source we have: nuclear. It's just not a logically consistent position, a litmus test to determine if one's environmental advocacy is real or merely performative. That is why China has announced they're building 150 new nuclear reactors in the next 15 years. The US will _inevitably_ have to follow suit to remain competitive.

natmaka 5y ago
China: * 50GW nuclear already in place, producing 5% of the gridpower. Previsions: up to 200GW in 2030. * 790GW renewables already in place, producing 26% of the gridpower. Previsions: 1200GW in 2030. In 2020 alone China added 71.6GW of windpower. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China
- erentz 5y ago
  Interesting, that's a pretty good illustration of the low capacity factors of wind and solar given that renewables figure includes 356GW of hydro power. And it shows them increasing nuclear power 4x but renewables only 50% by 2030.
  - natmaka 5y ago
    4x of not-so-much is easy and doesn't change the big picture while 50% of a huge amount is... huge and maintains the big picture.
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  > In 2020 alone China added 71.6GW of windpower. The problem here is that China's share of total energy from renewables has decreased from about 33% in 1990 to 13% in 2018[1]. Solar and Wind are not particularly useful given they are unreliable. Hydro is useful as it is reliable, but after the three gorges dam project, there isn't a lot left on the table in terms of hydro for China. Note that this is not because China is reducing renewables but rather it's energy needs are increasing so rapidly. And 58% of China's energy usage - 74 Terrawatt hours - is from coal, and that number is increasing -- 220 million more tons of coal being added just this year[2] [1] https://www.worlddata.info/asia/china/energy-consumption.php https://www.worlddata.info/asia/china/energy-consumption.php [2] https://www.reuters.com/article/china-coal/chinas-coal-consumption-seen-rising-in-2021-imports-steady-idUSL3N2L12A9 https://www.reuters.com/article/china-coal/chinas-coal-consu...
  - natmaka 5y ago
    > this is not because China is reducing renewables but rather it's energy needs are increasing so rapidly. This is key (also: in the graph hydro isn't accounted for), and the reason why the current observed trend (huge push to renewables, increasing their share despite the rapid energy needs increase) is another key. > Solar and Wind are not particularly useful given they are unreliable Their variability can be reduced, maybe even totally compensated, by various methods: continental-scale deployment of wind turbines, using a mix of sources (wind, solar, biomass...), storage, smartgrid... https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032115017013 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136403211... shows that is is true in Europe (quote: ""we demonstrate that the European energy system would strongly profit from exploiting the implications of these regimes for continent-scale wind generation patterns."), and maybe also for China (quote: "Liu et al. investigated wind energy complementarity across China, demonstrating that whereas a combination of wind and solar resources over a given area reduces the occurrence of zero-power hours, wind resources alone are sufficient to provide baseline power production, if a large enough area is considered.")
    - m0zg 5y ago
      I guess we'll see, since China knows that GDP is directly tied to energy, and they are pursuing "all of the above" strategy. We've been pursuing the "make Al Gore rich" strategy so far.
TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
China is investing far more in renewables than nukes - by 2030 the plan is for 7.7% of total energy from nukes vs 20% from renewables. If you ignore the colourful but factually incorrect rhetoric and look at the reality, nuclear power is expensive compared to renewables, and renewables will only get cheaper over time. But more importantly, when you consider a complete lifecycle analysis instead of cherry picking operational emissions and ignoring the rest, nukes are not a genuine low carbon energy source. https://theecologist.org/2015/feb/05/false-solution-nuclear-power-not-low-carbon https://theecologist.org/2015/feb/05/false-solution-nuclear-...

by m0zg 5y ago

natmaka 5y ago

China: * 50GW nuclear already in place, producing 5% of the gridpower. Previsions: up to 200GW in 2030. * 790GW renewables already in place, producing 26% of the gridpower. Previsions: 1200GW in 2030. In 2020 alone China added 71.6GW of windpower. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China

erentz 5y ago
Interesting, that's a pretty good illustration of the low capacity factors of wind and solar given that renewables figure includes 356GW of hydro power. And it shows them increasing nuclear power 4x but renewables only 50% by 2030.
- natmaka 5y ago
  4x of not-so-much is easy and doesn't change the big picture while 50% of a huge amount is... huge and maintains the big picture.
rsj_hn 5y ago
> In 2020 alone China added 71.6GW of windpower. The problem here is that China's share of total energy from renewables has decreased from about 33% in 1990 to 13% in 2018[1]. Solar and Wind are not particularly useful given they are unreliable. Hydro is useful as it is reliable, but after the three gorges dam project, there isn't a lot left on the table in terms of hydro for China. Note that this is not because China is reducing renewables but rather it's energy needs are increasing so rapidly. And 58% of China's energy usage - 74 Terrawatt hours - is from coal, and that number is increasing -- 220 million more tons of coal being added just this year[2] [1] https://www.worlddata.info/asia/china/energy-consumption.php https://www.worlddata.info/asia/china/energy-consumption.php [2] https://www.reuters.com/article/china-coal/chinas-coal-consumption-seen-rising-in-2021-imports-steady-idUSL3N2L12A9 https://www.reuters.com/article/china-coal/chinas-coal-consu...
- natmaka 5y ago
  > this is not because China is reducing renewables but rather it's energy needs are increasing so rapidly. This is key (also: in the graph hydro isn't accounted for), and the reason why the current observed trend (huge push to renewables, increasing their share despite the rapid energy needs increase) is another key. > Solar and Wind are not particularly useful given they are unreliable Their variability can be reduced, maybe even totally compensated, by various methods: continental-scale deployment of wind turbines, using a mix of sources (wind, solar, biomass...), storage, smartgrid... https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032115017013 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136403211... shows that is is true in Europe (quote: ""we demonstrate that the European energy system would strongly profit from exploiting the implications of these regimes for continent-scale wind generation patterns."), and maybe also for China (quote: "Liu et al. investigated wind energy complementarity across China, demonstrating that whereas a combination of wind and solar resources over a given area reduces the occurrence of zero-power hours, wind resources alone are sufficient to provide baseline power production, if a large enough area is considered.")
  - m0zg 5y ago
    I guess we'll see, since China knows that GDP is directly tied to energy, and they are pursuing "all of the above" strategy. We've been pursuing the "make Al Gore rich" strategy so far.

TheOtherHobbes 5y ago

China is investing far more in renewables than nukes - by 2030 the plan is for 7.7% of total energy from nukes vs 20% from renewables. If you ignore the colourful but factually incorrect rhetoric and look at the reality, nuclear power is expensive compared to renewables, and renewables will only get cheaper over time. But more importantly, when you consider a complete lifecycle analysis instead of cherry picking operational emissions and ignoring the rest, nukes are not a genuine low carbon energy source. https://theecologist.org/2015/feb/05/false-solution-nuclear-power-not-low-carbon https://theecologist.org/2015/feb/05/false-solution-nuclear-...