4 ms·

>Stupidly wrong, it seems to be placing some entirely unwarranted implication that without nuclear we'd be lost, when most serious analysis agree that renewable

>Stupidly wrong, it seems to be placing some entirely unwarranted implication that without nuclear we'd be lost, when most serious analysis agree that renewables will be about 80% of energy production, which doesn't really leave much room for nuclear to take all the credit. >IEA's net zero roadmap... I'd like to make a slightly vague rebuttal to your slightly vague rebuttal (ofc not your fault if the IEA doesn't explicitly say anything about nuclear, not blaming you). The IPCC has said that nuclear is necessary if we want to hit our climate goals.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago
It gets a mention, just not a starring role: > By 2050, almost 90% of electricity generation comes from renewable sources, with wind and solar PV together accounting for nearly 70%. Most of the remainder comes from nuclear. So "no path to clean energy without solar" and "no path to clean energy without wind" are a bit more defensible, though in both cases, we'd just build more of the other one. "no path to clean energy without hydro"? Maybe, again we'd just build more solar and wind. So, if someone waves a wand and magically makes nuclear disappear (or just economically unattractive) then I think the our path is still fairly clear. No real need to take that path unless nuclear becomes much more relatively expensive, but it's definately an option, and possibly one we'll gladly take because it's cheaper.
- trashtester 4y ago
  > By 2050, almost 90% of electricity generation comes from renewable sources, with wind and solar PV together accounting for nearly 70%. Most of the remainder comes from nuclear. In other words, IPCC counts nuclear as "renewable"?
  - pfdietz 4y ago
    No, the "remainder" that is nuclear is the 10% that renewables don't cover. The renewables other than solar/wind are things like hydro, geothermal, and waste/biomass.
    - trashtester 4y ago
      Ok, thx.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

It gets a mention, just not a starring role: > By 2050, almost 90% of electricity generation comes from renewable sources, with wind and solar PV together accounting for nearly 70%. Most of the remainder comes from nuclear. So "no path to clean energy without solar" and "no path to clean energy without wind" are a bit more defensible, though in both cases, we'd just build more of the other one. "no path to clean energy without hydro"? Maybe, again we'd just build more solar and wind. So, if someone waves a wand and magically makes nuclear disappear (or just economically unattractive) then I think the our path is still fairly clear. No real need to take that path unless nuclear becomes much more relatively expensive, but it's definately an option, and possibly one we'll gladly take because it's cheaper.

trashtester 4y ago
> By 2050, almost 90% of electricity generation comes from renewable sources, with wind and solar PV together accounting for nearly 70%. Most of the remainder comes from nuclear. In other words, IPCC counts nuclear as "renewable"?
- pfdietz 4y ago
  No, the "remainder" that is nuclear is the 10% that renewables don't cover. The renewables other than solar/wind are things like hydro, geothermal, and waste/biomass.
  - trashtester 4y ago
    Ok, thx.