3 ms·

Those are science projects that may not see widespread use for decades (if ever). Right now there are no alternatives for fossil fuel baseload.

pfdietz 4y ago
This is what I was talking about when I dissed you for saying anything that wasn't existing yet couldn't exist. You need to censor your prejudices about renewable energy, your irrational dislike for it is leading you astray. These are engineering projects, not science projects. They are becoming practical not because of huge advances in science fictional novelties, but because the economic context (where fossil fuels are going to be gone, one way or the other) is making approaches using largely off-the-shelf things competitive. Thermal storage, for example, is almost steampunk. The big question with renewables is not whether it can do the job -- it clearly can -- it's which of the many subsidiary technologies will win.
- macspoofing 4y ago
  >This is what I was talking about when I dissed Ha. Dissed? Is this high school? >These are engineering projects, not science projects. They are becoming practical not because of huge advances in science fictional novelties, You equivocate between things that are ready and proven NOW versus things that may be ready in the future. This is a common method of argument with proponents of wind and solar. How about this: There are around a thousand cities in the world with a population of 750,000 or more. When you show me one of those cities powered by wind/solar/choose-favorite-storage (not even to 100%, but maybe to 90%), then maybe we can say that wind/solar can do the job. Right now that number is 0 (and there are no near to mid-term plans to change that) so I think you have to have a little bit of humility with respect to wind/solar viability.
  - pfdietz 4y ago
    What's happening is that the environment in which these technologies have to work is changing. When fossil fuels were cheap and CO2 untaxed, it's really hard for renewables and storage to win. But that's not going to be the world going forward. Fossil fuels have to be phased out, which means raising CO2 taxes as high as needed to make that happen. In that environment, it's suddenly highly profitable to push these technologies, and they will go from nothing to dominant in very little time. The supposed advantage of nuclear, that it has already been demonstrated, means very little. Nuclear had its change to get better, and it got worse. It's already demonstrated it's a loser. The market is already making the judgment on how this will turn out, whether you like it or not. Money is flowing into renewables and storage; very little is going into nuclear. Nuclear is old, tired, and slowly dying.

pfdietz 4y ago

This is what I was talking about when I dissed you for saying anything that wasn't existing yet couldn't exist. You need to censor your prejudices about renewable energy, your irrational dislike for it is leading you astray. These are engineering projects, not science projects. They are becoming practical not because of huge advances in science fictional novelties, but because the economic context (where fossil fuels are going to be gone, one way or the other) is making approaches using largely off-the-shelf things competitive. Thermal storage, for example, is almost steampunk. The big question with renewables is not whether it can do the job -- it clearly can -- it's which of the many subsidiary technologies will win.

macspoofing 4y ago
>This is what I was talking about when I dissed Ha. Dissed? Is this high school? >These are engineering projects, not science projects. They are becoming practical not because of huge advances in science fictional novelties, You equivocate between things that are ready and proven NOW versus things that may be ready in the future. This is a common method of argument with proponents of wind and solar. How about this: There are around a thousand cities in the world with a population of 750,000 or more. When you show me one of those cities powered by wind/solar/choose-favorite-storage (not even to 100%, but maybe to 90%), then maybe we can say that wind/solar can do the job. Right now that number is 0 (and there are no near to mid-term plans to change that) so I think you have to have a little bit of humility with respect to wind/solar viability.
- pfdietz 4y ago
  What's happening is that the environment in which these technologies have to work is changing. When fossil fuels were cheap and CO2 untaxed, it's really hard for renewables and storage to win. But that's not going to be the world going forward. Fossil fuels have to be phased out, which means raising CO2 taxes as high as needed to make that happen. In that environment, it's suddenly highly profitable to push these technologies, and they will go from nothing to dominant in very little time. The supposed advantage of nuclear, that it has already been demonstrated, means very little. Nuclear had its change to get better, and it got worse. It's already demonstrated it's a loser. The market is already making the judgment on how this will turn out, whether you like it or not. Money is flowing into renewables and storage; very little is going into nuclear. Nuclear is old, tired, and slowly dying.