3 ms·

> We've put ten times the money it would take to solve this on nuclear into solar, Could you share the numbers for how much subsidy money was put into solar te

> We've put ten times the money it would take to solve this on nuclear into solar, Could you share the numbers for how much subsidy money was put into solar technology, and how much for nuclear energy (and fossil fuels, for that matter) over their history? > and unless you incorrectly use nameplate capacity, it hasn't even broken the 2% mark yet, The number I'm seeing[0] for solar, globally (based on 2019 data), is 2.7%, which, combined with wind, wave, and tidal etc. comes to 10.5%, compared to 10.4% for nuclear. Both are dwarfed by hydropower's 15.8%, of course, but it's hard to manufacture the right sort of rivers. > but it's already throwing the grid into chaos. That hasn't been the experience in Australia[1], so it sounds like you're referring to a politics problem, not a technology problem. [0] https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2020/08/Global-energy-vs.-electricity-breakdown-800x423.png https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2020/08/Global-energy-vs.... [1] https://www.pv-magazine.com/2020/08/31/renewables-improve-reliability-outlook-for-australias-main-grid/ https://www.pv-magazine.com/2020/08/31/renewables-improve-re...

JohnHaugeland 5y ago
> Could you share the numbers No thanks, you're doing a fine job finding wrong numbers by not knowing the difference between nameplate and delivered already.   > The number I'm seeing[0] is irrelevant, as it's about how much power the solar panels could produce, if the planet had noon 24 hours a day and the panels were forever perfectly aligned. Energiewende is unambiguous.   > which, combined with wind, wave, and tidal etc. comes to 10.5%, When you learn what to look for, it's under 1%. No, I don't have to teach you this in order to speak where you are also present. No, googling things without foundational knowledge isn't a valid push back. This is energy anti-vaxing.   > That hasn't been the experience in Australia Gee, who'd have thought that Australia, whose solar panel industry barely exists and which is entirely fuelled by coal and LNG, which can ramp up and down, would not yet be facing this? If only there was a valid piece of history to meausure, which left an entire country dumping power at negative prices for more than a month in the desperation to not blow their grid If only that country was radically more industrialized than Australia If only you knew enough about power history to not need to ask me who I mean If only you'd look at that eleven years and figure out what it meant

JohnHaugeland 5y ago

> Could you share the numbers No thanks, you're doing a fine job finding wrong numbers by not knowing the difference between nameplate and delivered already.   > The number I'm seeing[0] is irrelevant, as it's about how much power the solar panels could produce, if the planet had noon 24 hours a day and the panels were forever perfectly aligned. Energiewende is unambiguous.   > which, combined with wind, wave, and tidal etc. comes to 10.5%, When you learn what to look for, it's under 1%. No, I don't have to teach you this in order to speak where you are also present. No, googling things without foundational knowledge isn't a valid push back. This is energy anti-vaxing.   > That hasn't been the experience in Australia Gee, who'd have thought that Australia, whose solar panel industry barely exists and which is entirely fuelled by coal and LNG, which can ramp up and down, would not yet be facing this? If only there was a valid piece of history to meausure, which left an entire country dumping power at negative prices for more than a month in the desperation to not blow their grid If only that country was radically more industrialized than Australia If only you knew enough about power history to not need to ask me who I mean If only you'd look at that eleven years and figure out what it meant