4 ms·

I used to support wind power and vilify natural gas. I was so wrong

10 points by nnx 4y ago

superchroma 4y ago
I've looked at his feed and I'm not impressed, and I don't accept his unsourced bullet point slide as gospel. At least he's pro-nuclear, but that's not much of a redeeming factor. We spent decades being gaslit (heh) by pro-hydrocarbon stooges who swore that renewables could never ever work, citing junk statistics they carefully curated or just outright fabricated, and then PV panel production really ramped and proved them to be liars, and they all moved on to the next thing. What is true is that the oil and gas industry is going to kick and scream the entire way as the human race tries to wean itself from this addiction, and it doesn't matter how many animals die, how many glaciers melt or rivers run dry, they do not care.
- mindslight 4y ago
  The slightly insightful practical points mixed in with the misleading economic points set off my alarm bells to the point that I have a hard time believing the lede is is truthful. The economic points are misleading because obviously it's cheaper and easier to release energy from concentrated stored chemical energy rather than capturing it from diffuse solar radiation. The point of the subsidies is to encourage developing the economy of the harder thing, for longer term reasons that aren't reflected in the instantaneous economics. Focusing on the instantaneous economics brushes aside the larger goal, in favor of emotionally appeals to saving money. From a practical perspective, yes gas is miles ahead of coal. Just like if you're concerned with nuclear radiation, building new nuclear plants to replace coal plants is a win. Shouting down new gas plants in favor of keeping existing coal running is doing a terrible disservice. But this piece fallaciously extrapolates the comparison between gas and coal into outright condemnation of renewables, which smells like regressive fossil fuel industry FUD.
lukeify 4y ago
> It uses 370x less land Given wind power is often co-located with farming, agriculture, or even reforestation, I don't buy this claim in the slightest. The only footprint that needs counting here is that area of the tower on the ground itself—and that's without even considering offshore wind.
8bitsrule 4y ago
Two quick responses: > NatGas has reduced CO2 by 2X more than wind Wind produces no CO2. If you mean 'so far', that need came from heel-dragging. Nat gas produces much more CO2 than we can live with - which is none. > It's cheaper So's death. Anyway, no, nat gas must be mined, transported, and burned efficiently. Wind electricity is simply used without conversion. >

10 points by nnx 4y ago

I've looked at his feed and I'm not impressed, and I don't accept his unsourced bullet point slide as gospel. At least he's pro-nuclear, but that's not much of a redeeming factor. We spent decades being gaslit (heh) by pro-hydrocarbon stooges who swore that renewables could never ever work, citing junk statistics they carefully curated or just outright fabricated, and then PV panel production really ramped and proved them to be liars, and they all moved on to the next thing. What is true is that the oil and gas industry is going to kick and scream the entire way as the human race tries to wean itself from this addiction, and it doesn't matter how many animals die, how many glaciers melt or rivers run dry, they do not care.

mindslight 4y ago
The slightly insightful practical points mixed in with the misleading economic points set off my alarm bells to the point that I have a hard time believing the lede is is truthful. The economic points are misleading because obviously it's cheaper and easier to release energy from concentrated stored chemical energy rather than capturing it from diffuse solar radiation. The point of the subsidies is to encourage developing the economy of the harder thing, for longer term reasons that aren't reflected in the instantaneous economics. Focusing on the instantaneous economics brushes aside the larger goal, in favor of emotionally appeals to saving money. From a practical perspective, yes gas is miles ahead of coal. Just like if you're concerned with nuclear radiation, building new nuclear plants to replace coal plants is a win. Shouting down new gas plants in favor of keeping existing coal running is doing a terrible disservice. But this piece fallaciously extrapolates the comparison between gas and coal into outright condemnation of renewables, which smells like regressive fossil fuel industry FUD.

lukeify 4y ago

> It uses 370x less land Given wind power is often co-located with farming, agriculture, or even reforestation, I don't buy this claim in the slightest. The only footprint that needs counting here is that area of the tower on the ground itself—and that's without even considering offshore wind.

8bitsrule 4y ago

Two quick responses: > NatGas has reduced CO2 by 2X more than wind Wind produces no CO2. If you mean 'so far', that need came from heel-dragging. Nat gas produces much more CO2 than we can live with - which is none. > It's cheaper So's death. Anyway, no, nat gas must be mined, transported, and burned efficiently. Wind electricity is simply used without conversion. >