4 ms·

> Pointing out the deficiencies of intermittent sources isn't ignoring the externalities of fossil fuels. Oh, but it is. It is such a common trope, always trot

> Pointing out the deficiencies of intermittent sources isn't ignoring the externalities of fossil fuels. Oh, but it is. It is such a common trope, always trotted out as a reason to keep using coal or natural gas. Often it is paired with appeals to nuclear power which isn't being built, leaving us with fossil fuel energy while we wait for something to not happen. > So just skip the intermittent sources. Let's say we spend $100B on new power generation over the next 10 years: $50B for nuclear and $50B for wind+storage. Which do you think will produce more watt-hours during this 10 year period? Which will reduce dependence on fossil fuels more? We both know the answer to this so consider it rhetorical. Arguments against renewables are arguments for the status quo, which includes some imagined ideal that won't happen.

Manuel_D 4y ago
$100B on wind and solar with no storage would outperform $50B on wind and $50B on storage. But what happens when we actually try to achieve 0% carbon emissions? Once wind and solar saturate their periods of peak production they become less and less effective because more and more of their energy goes to waste. Worse yet, peak energy demand happens in the evening right after sundown, when intermittent sources are at their lowest period of production. Mitigating fossil fuel use and actually eliminating fossil fuel use are very different goals. Solar and wind are good for the short-term goal of small fossil fuel reductions. They are not very good at actually providing the bulk of a decarbonized grid. Storage remains a fantasy, so that leaves nuclear and hydroelectricity as the only non-intermittent carbon-free sources of energy. For places with the right geography for dams, great. For everywhere else, nuclear is the only option. There's a few other sources of energy like geothermal and tidal power, but those are similarly geographically limited.

Manuel_D 4y ago

$100B on wind and solar with no storage would outperform $50B on wind and $50B on storage. But what happens when we actually try to achieve 0% carbon emissions? Once wind and solar saturate their periods of peak production they become less and less effective because more and more of their energy goes to waste. Worse yet, peak energy demand happens in the evening right after sundown, when intermittent sources are at their lowest period of production. Mitigating fossil fuel use and actually eliminating fossil fuel use are very different goals. Solar and wind are good for the short-term goal of small fossil fuel reductions. They are not very good at actually providing the bulk of a decarbonized grid. Storage remains a fantasy, so that leaves nuclear and hydroelectricity as the only non-intermittent carbon-free sources of energy. For places with the right geography for dams, great. For everywhere else, nuclear is the only option. There's a few other sources of energy like geothermal and tidal power, but those are similarly geographically limited.