5 ms·

> governments have historically put to much faith in it If we (US) hadn't stopped building nuclear in the 80s and had instead merely key up the pace, our grid

> governments have historically put to much faith in it If we (US) hadn't stopped building nuclear in the 80s and had instead merely key up the pace, our grid wouldn't be 20% nuclear like it is today, it would be 100% nuclear. Instead, we made the choice to pump 20 gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere while we waited for solar and wind to become viable. I'm glad they finally are -- they just broke into double digits, in a few years they will pass the nuclear buildout we stopped in the 80s -- but that was one helluva waiting cost.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
runarberg 4y ago
This is false dichotomy. The US government also had the option of investing in renewables as early as the 1970s. They simply didn’t. The success of Germany’s recent investment suggests that was a wrong choice.
- scoopertrooper 4y ago
  In fairness solar efficiency was below 10% in the 1970s, while the world was already producing many gigawatts of nuclear energy at that time. It's not as though Germany could have 'decided' in the 1970s to have 2022 technology. Sure, increased investment at the time may have sped up the development of renewables, but it still wouldn't be fast. Science doesn't quite work that way.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    Solar efficiency and cost would have been where they are today by 1990, and we would not now be facing imminent, impending Climatic Catastrophe. Energy during ie past 30 years would have been radically cheaper. Coal plants and nuke plants alike would have been shuttered as unsustainable, not for their CO2 but just because they cost too damn much. But here we are, instead. Thank Reagan. And Bush. And Bush, again. US spent $5T trashing Iraq and Afghanistan. That would have paid for completely switching over to renewables, several time over.
    - thrown_22 4y ago
      So you're argument is that in an alternative timeline where we'd invested more money we would have invented technology in the 1980s that still doesn't exist in the 2020s?
      - spopejoy 4y ago
        Uhh, renewables are here today. The parent was refuting that "solar wasn't ready" by making the point that the progress in renewables is attributable to increased industrial activity and funding. Reagan took the solar panels off the White House for a reason, so his buddy James Watt could kill off any alternatives to fossil energy. That regime lasted until the 90s and by then any memory of the oil crises in the 70s was long gone.
        opo 4y ago
        >Reagan took the solar panels off the White House for a reason, so his buddy James Watt could kill off any alternatives to fossil energy. The panels installed on the White House were not photovoltaic solar panels - they were solar water heater panels. (After they damaged the roof, they weren't replaced after the repairs were done.) It wouldn't have been possible to run the economy on solar water heater panels.
        pfdietz 4y ago
        And traditional solar hot water is today obsolete. It's cheaper to use PV and a heat pump water heater.
      - runarberg 4y ago
        Not OP, but yes! I believe the argument is that in an alternative timeline where the US government invested in renewables, they would be both more technologically advanced and more commercially feasible today. I’m not the biggest fan of arguing about alternate history, but this thread originally spun out after an ancestor poster claimed we would have a rosy present if only we had invested more in nuclear energy. I claim I find way more wishful then claiming the same about renewables.
- thrown_22 4y ago
  German success? You mean the country headed into a winter where they will be shutting down their industry have people freeze to death at the whim of Putin? I shudder to think what failure looks like to you.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    Germany is today burning less coal than would have been necessary if they had refurbished their nukes instead of spending the money building out wind. Operating the wind farms is much cheaper than operating the nukes and mining the extra coal would have been. That opex savings goes to more capex wind generation capacity, further reducing costs by each GW displaced. So, yes, success. Not being off coal already is not failure. Replacing an entire country's energy infrastructure takes time, no matter what.
    - thrown_22 4y ago
      > Germany is today burning less coal than would have been necessary if they had refurbished their nukes instead of spending the money building out wind. Looks at France Sure.
      - ncmncm 4y ago
        France is, at the moment, importing power, because their nukes are largely turned off. So, sure, look at France.
        thrown_22 4y ago
        And are a net exporter by around 10%. Meanwhile in Germany: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/germany-turns-electricity-importer-first-time-five-years-june https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/germany-turns-electrici...
        ncmncm 4y ago
        You are comparing emergency war response to energy policy. Desperate much?
pfdietz 4y ago
"If nuclear hadn't failed, it would have succeeded."

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

runarberg 4y ago

This is false dichotomy. The US government also had the option of investing in renewables as early as the 1970s. They simply didn’t. The success of Germany’s recent investment suggests that was a wrong choice.

scoopertrooper 4y ago
In fairness solar efficiency was below 10% in the 1970s, while the world was already producing many gigawatts of nuclear energy at that time. It's not as though Germany could have 'decided' in the 1970s to have 2022 technology. Sure, increased investment at the time may have sped up the development of renewables, but it still wouldn't be fast. Science doesn't quite work that way.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Solar efficiency and cost would have been where they are today by 1990, and we would not now be facing imminent, impending Climatic Catastrophe. Energy during ie past 30 years would have been radically cheaper. Coal plants and nuke plants alike would have been shuttered as unsustainable, not for their CO2 but just because they cost too damn much. But here we are, instead. Thank Reagan. And Bush. And Bush, again. US spent $5T trashing Iraq and Afghanistan. That would have paid for completely switching over to renewables, several time over.
  - thrown_22 4y ago
    So you're argument is that in an alternative timeline where we'd invested more money we would have invented technology in the 1980s that still doesn't exist in the 2020s?
    - spopejoy 4y ago
      Uhh, renewables are here today. The parent was refuting that "solar wasn't ready" by making the point that the progress in renewables is attributable to increased industrial activity and funding. Reagan took the solar panels off the White House for a reason, so his buddy James Watt could kill off any alternatives to fossil energy. That regime lasted until the 90s and by then any memory of the oil crises in the 70s was long gone.
      - opo 4y ago
        >Reagan took the solar panels off the White House for a reason, so his buddy James Watt could kill off any alternatives to fossil energy. The panels installed on the White House were not photovoltaic solar panels - they were solar water heater panels. (After they damaged the roof, they weren't replaced after the repairs were done.) It wouldn't have been possible to run the economy on solar water heater panels.
        pfdietz 4y ago
        And traditional solar hot water is today obsolete. It's cheaper to use PV and a heat pump water heater.
    - runarberg 4y ago
      Not OP, but yes! I believe the argument is that in an alternative timeline where the US government invested in renewables, they would be both more technologically advanced and more commercially feasible today. I’m not the biggest fan of arguing about alternate history, but this thread originally spun out after an ancestor poster claimed we would have a rosy present if only we had invested more in nuclear energy. I claim I find way more wishful then claiming the same about renewables.
thrown_22 4y ago
German success? You mean the country headed into a winter where they will be shutting down their industry have people freeze to death at the whim of Putin? I shudder to think what failure looks like to you.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Germany is today burning less coal than would have been necessary if they had refurbished their nukes instead of spending the money building out wind. Operating the wind farms is much cheaper than operating the nukes and mining the extra coal would have been. That opex savings goes to more capex wind generation capacity, further reducing costs by each GW displaced. So, yes, success. Not being off coal already is not failure. Replacing an entire country's energy infrastructure takes time, no matter what.
  - thrown_22 4y ago
    > Germany is today burning less coal than would have been necessary if they had refurbished their nukes instead of spending the money building out wind. Looks at France Sure.
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      France is, at the moment, importing power, because their nukes are largely turned off. So, sure, look at France.
      - thrown_22 4y ago
        And are a net exporter by around 10%. Meanwhile in Germany: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/germany-turns-electricity-importer-first-time-five-years-june https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/germany-turns-electrici...
        ncmncm 4y ago
        You are comparing emergency war response to energy policy. Desperate much?

pfdietz 4y ago

"If nuclear hadn't failed, it would have succeeded."