4 ms·

> The data shows that. Many people are saying this. > An increased reliance on renewables means a large increase in reliance on LNG. What matters is whether

> The data shows that. Many people are saying this. > An increased reliance on renewables means a large increase in reliance on LNG. What matters is whether increased reliance on renewables slows down the decarbonisation effort. If you have data which shows that, I'd be interested to see it. In return, let me offer a study from last year which found: "in countries with a high GDP per capita, nuclear electricity production does associate with a small drop in CO2 emissions. But in comparative terms, this drop is smaller than that associated with investments in renewable energy. And in countries with a low GDP per capita, nuclear electricity production clearly associates with CO2 emissions that tend to be higher." https://www.sussex.ac.uk/broadcast/read/53376 https://www.sussex.ac.uk/broadcast/read/53376

vlovich123 5y ago
Solar and wind mean you need batteries (can’t do off-peak without it). This means you still need peaker plants. Even if you accelerated battery technology drastically (which I’d say is already at max R&D speed mostly), you’re looking at some fundamental challenges getting the precious materials (total volume/cost and also energy required to do the mining). Finally, my understanding is that solar and wind can’t actually be used in some energy-intensive industrial processes because they can’t generate enough heat. This means those power needs are still powered by traditional fossil fuel power plants (and too expensive to use just for the industrial purpose so it’s actually part of the energy mix for good). Solar and wind are important parts of the energy mix and.OF COURSE we need them. Nuclear is where the bulk of the focus needs to go though to actually decarbonize because it can handle literally every use case that fossil fuels do but cheaper, safer and less polluting.
- 988747 5y ago
  > Solar and wind mean you need batteries (can’t do off-peak without it) We do not have enough batteries in the world, and producing enough of them would take decades, and cost us trillions of dollars. Nuclear power plants are better and cheaper solution.

vlovich123 5y ago

Solar and wind mean you need batteries (can’t do off-peak without it). This means you still need peaker plants. Even if you accelerated battery technology drastically (which I’d say is already at max R&D speed mostly), you’re looking at some fundamental challenges getting the precious materials (total volume/cost and also energy required to do the mining). Finally, my understanding is that solar and wind can’t actually be used in some energy-intensive industrial processes because they can’t generate enough heat. This means those power needs are still powered by traditional fossil fuel power plants (and too expensive to use just for the industrial purpose so it’s actually part of the energy mix for good). Solar and wind are important parts of the energy mix and.OF COURSE we need them. Nuclear is where the bulk of the focus needs to go though to actually decarbonize because it can handle literally every use case that fossil fuels do but cheaper, safer and less polluting.

988747 5y ago
> Solar and wind mean you need batteries (can’t do off-peak without it) We do not have enough batteries in the world, and producing enough of them would take decades, and cost us trillions of dollars. Nuclear power plants are better and cheaper solution.