4 ms·

No biggie, just overbuild 3 times your capacity, replace all cars with electric cars (including the current ones that do not have this capacity), build storage

No biggie, just overbuild 3 times your capacity, replace all cars with electric cars (including the current ones that do not have this capacity), build storage (on the scale of which has never been seen before), make a miraculous, worldwide, no loss grid and use methods which have absolutely dreadful energy efficiency (P2G2P ? Hydrogen. Cool. I like losing 70% of my energy too) Needless to say, the sheer need for resources to build all this will make the current state of global warming and climate change look like child's play compared to earth after. Holy shit, how hard is it for zealots to understand and accept that our best, realistic solution to electrifying as much as possible is through a combination of nuclear and renewables, something that literally every competent actor has said time and time again ?

ZeroGravitas 4y ago
Quite a lot of the things you list apply to nuclear electricity too. But you seem to be implying that those are renewable problems that nuclear doesn't have, and that adding nuclear to the energy mix will improve them. Can you explain how? Like, "pink hydrogen" is hydrogen made by electrolysis with nuclear power. You had a little rant about Green Hydrogen, so how does nuclear change that? What's wrong with EVs charged from nuclear? Does nuclear mean you don't need grid interconnects? Why do France and Germany trade energy back and forth then? I like nuclear as a tech. It's you that I have doubt about actually supporting it as it seems to just be a hippy-punching shibboleth for you. Are you really just arguing for fossil fuels?
- ohgodplsno 4y ago
  Problem: we are using too many resources and causing climate change on a scale never seen before Solution: Build renewables on a scale never seen before, then do it again two more times, as well as once every ten years to replace the ones that failed. Do you see the slight problem? We do not have the resources for that. We cannot afford that. Is nuclear perfect? No. We have spent fuel (that hopefully we can figure out how to reuse, but for now, it's just waste buried deep), it's big, it's unwieldy. But it's reliable. Resources are both plentiful and we don't need that much. A whole lot of concrete (still much less that we would need to put wind turbines), fissile material that can be found pretty much anywhere, and a good bunch of pipes and various metals (infinitely less than what we'd need for solar or wind). I said green hydrogen was shit for storing energy, and so is pink hydrogen. But if that can make you happy, I'm more than willing to use whatever surplus we get from renewables to make hydrogen. I'd just rather we waste 70% of a small production, rather than 70% of all. What's wrong with EVs charged from nuclear? Everything. The only green car is a car that isn't manufactured. For most people (especially in europe), an EV will pretty much take 10 years before it offsets its CO2 emissions. Should we stop selling ICEs? Yes. Should we replace millions of existing cars with EVs? Absofuckinglutely not. Nuclear means you're less dependent on those interconnects. Which, you know, is a useful thing to be as a sovereign country. See: Europe and its dependency on gas. > Are you really just arguing for fossil fuels? Considering how happy fossil fuel companies are about renewables because it allows them to sell gas when it inevitably doesn't work for a day and you need something else to make up for it, you would do well to rethink your mindless support. Every 100% renewables plan is the equivalent of a spherical cow in a vacuum. We cannot mine that much. We cannot find that much space in ideal locations, nor maintain it. There is not a single mine in the world able to get the resources we need. Ignoring reality is all fun and games, and if we had infinite time in front of us, I'd be all okay with going full intermittent power. But we both know it's not the case. Pretending anything else is ignorance and optimism at best, and malice at worst. You need to learn compromise, and as it stands, we cannot afford not to.
ftth_finland 4y ago
Even overbuilding 3 times isn’t enough. Zero times a big number is still zero. Finnish winter crushes solar and wind generation. No sun and wind still days.
- Gwypaas 4y ago
  It is windier in the winter months, so what is needed is geographical decoupling through interconnections. Then overbuilding and curtailment definitely is a workable solution. The Baltic sea is also definitely workable for off-shore wind. Not to the level of the north sea but not that far off. https://globalwindatlas.info/ https://globalwindatlas.info/
  - ftth_finland 4y ago
    Geographical decoupling is neither cheap nor easy. Africa is far away and not exactly chock-full of stable countries.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

Quite a lot of the things you list apply to nuclear electricity too. But you seem to be implying that those are renewable problems that nuclear doesn't have, and that adding nuclear to the energy mix will improve them. Can you explain how? Like, "pink hydrogen" is hydrogen made by electrolysis with nuclear power. You had a little rant about Green Hydrogen, so how does nuclear change that? What's wrong with EVs charged from nuclear? Does nuclear mean you don't need grid interconnects? Why do France and Germany trade energy back and forth then? I like nuclear as a tech. It's you that I have doubt about actually supporting it as it seems to just be a hippy-punching shibboleth for you. Are you really just arguing for fossil fuels?

ohgodplsno 4y ago
Problem: we are using too many resources and causing climate change on a scale never seen before Solution: Build renewables on a scale never seen before, then do it again two more times, as well as once every ten years to replace the ones that failed. Do you see the slight problem? We do not have the resources for that. We cannot afford that. Is nuclear perfect? No. We have spent fuel (that hopefully we can figure out how to reuse, but for now, it's just waste buried deep), it's big, it's unwieldy. But it's reliable. Resources are both plentiful and we don't need that much. A whole lot of concrete (still much less that we would need to put wind turbines), fissile material that can be found pretty much anywhere, and a good bunch of pipes and various metals (infinitely less than what we'd need for solar or wind). I said green hydrogen was shit for storing energy, and so is pink hydrogen. But if that can make you happy, I'm more than willing to use whatever surplus we get from renewables to make hydrogen. I'd just rather we waste 70% of a small production, rather than 70% of all. What's wrong with EVs charged from nuclear? Everything. The only green car is a car that isn't manufactured. For most people (especially in europe), an EV will pretty much take 10 years before it offsets its CO2 emissions. Should we stop selling ICEs? Yes. Should we replace millions of existing cars with EVs? Absofuckinglutely not. Nuclear means you're less dependent on those interconnects. Which, you know, is a useful thing to be as a sovereign country. See: Europe and its dependency on gas. > Are you really just arguing for fossil fuels? Considering how happy fossil fuel companies are about renewables because it allows them to sell gas when it inevitably doesn't work for a day and you need something else to make up for it, you would do well to rethink your mindless support. Every 100% renewables plan is the equivalent of a spherical cow in a vacuum. We cannot mine that much. We cannot find that much space in ideal locations, nor maintain it. There is not a single mine in the world able to get the resources we need. Ignoring reality is all fun and games, and if we had infinite time in front of us, I'd be all okay with going full intermittent power. But we both know it's not the case. Pretending anything else is ignorance and optimism at best, and malice at worst. You need to learn compromise, and as it stands, we cannot afford not to.

ftth_finland 4y ago

Even overbuilding 3 times isn’t enough. Zero times a big number is still zero. Finnish winter crushes solar and wind generation. No sun and wind still days.

Gwypaas 4y ago
It is windier in the winter months, so what is needed is geographical decoupling through interconnections. Then overbuilding and curtailment definitely is a workable solution. The Baltic sea is also definitely workable for off-shore wind. Not to the level of the north sea but not that far off. https://globalwindatlas.info/ https://globalwindatlas.info/
- ftth_finland 4y ago
  Geographical decoupling is neither cheap nor easy. Africa is far away and not exactly chock-full of stable countries.