4 ms·

Nuclear takes way, way too long to get online to help with global warming. Renewables absolutely can and are "getting us there." It's a solved problem. Fusion

Nuclear takes way, way too long to get online to help with global warming. Renewables absolutely can and are "getting us there." It's a solved problem. Fusion is always some long period of time away. It is not close to being a viable source of power, and there are convincing arguments it never will be. And regardless, why do we need to waste so much money trying to turn into a viable source of power when we have solar and wind now and they are cheaper than any other form of power? By all means keep researching fusion for scientific reasons, but enough with the empty promises about it being the ultimate power source. And fission can die off as the existing reactors reach the end of their lives. It is too expensive, too environmentally dangerous and totally unnecessary.

Raydovsky 4y ago
Renewables are a solved problem, but storage of energy to combat the unreliability of renewables isn't. NPP's take about 7 years to build. The latest EPR builds are taking more due to an over complicated design.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Storage is not, in fact, a problem. Numerous methods using century-old tech are cheap and practical, and only need to be built out. They are not being built out yet because there is not excess renewable generating capacity to charge them from.
vlovich123 4y ago
Renewables have yet to demonstrate the ability to replace fossil fuels in any meaningful way. They seem to top out at 10-20% of the energy mix. France achieved net 0 many decades ago because they went all in with nuclear whereas their neighbors that went with renewables haven’t gotten anywhere close to that. The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The second best time is now.
- dieortin 4y ago
  France hasn’t achieved net 0, not even close. And there are several countries with more than 20% renewable energy in their grid.
  - godelski 4y ago
    I agree with the first part but not the second. Up until recently (when a lot of their nuclear went offline) they were one of the lowest emitters in Europe. They were comparable to Sweden and Iceland, which have substantially smaller (and more centralized) populations. I'll agree that thinking nuclear will get us all the way to net zero energy emissions is silly, but let's not undermine the great accomplishments France has made. They have been leagues ahead of the rest of Europe. Even at significantly reduced capacity they are still one of the lowest emitters. https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/FI https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/FI
  - chamibc 4y ago
    And even those countries in the EU such as Denmark rely on France for electricity imports because no country in the world has any large scale storage solution for renewables.
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      It would be stupid to put money into storage before there is excess renewable capacity to charge it from. So, people instead put money into generating capacity. When we have any use for storage, we will build out storage.
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      France imports large amounts of energy during winter, largely from gas and coal producing neighbors.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Renewables have long since demonstrated ability to replace fossil fuels, and are being built out at an always increasing rate, already exceeding 20% in many places. France is importing power.
  - chamibc 4y ago
    This is plain wrong. France has been one of the most reliable exporters of electricity in EU for over a decade https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_France#/media/File%3AElectricity_export_France.png https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_France...
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      Some of the time. Not this summer, e.g.
- laurencerowe 4y ago
  > Renewables have yet to demonstrate the ability to replace fossil fuels in any meaningful way. They seem to top out at 10-20% of the energy mix. Denmark has reportedly reached 53.3% of electricity consumption with wind and solar. "The first half of 2022 has been a record-breaking period for green energy production in Denmark. Danish windmills and solar panels produced 10,9 TWh in the first six months of the year – a significant 12% increase from the previous record from 2020. Another all-time high, the fraction of wind and solar power in the total electricity consumption was 53,3%." https://stateofgreen.com/en/news/green-danish-energy-production-at-a-record-high-in-the-first-half-of-2022/ https://stateofgreen.com/en/news/green-danish-energy-product... > France achieved net 0 many decades ago because they went all in with nuclear whereas their neighbors that went with renewables haven’t gotten anywhere close to that. Unfortunately even France no longer seems able to build new nuclear generation capacity at a reasonable cost. While wind, solar, and batteries get ever cheaper, nuclear has gotten more expensive over time. For what it's worth I used to agree with you that Nuclear seemed the only viable way forward, after reading https://www.withouthotair.com https://www.withouthotair.com. However much has changed over the past 14 years since it was published.
  - belorn 4y ago
    Denmark reached 100% wind capacity in 2013, 9 years ago, and is today completely dependent on Norway and Sweden to supply hydro energy when demand exceed supply. Around 50% of the energy Denmark consume is from imports. Denmark wind and solar farms do sell a lot of energy to other countries when the weather is optimal, but when its not they have to buy that energy from somewhere. EU ruled a while back that the Swedish energy grid must sell energy to Denmark if there is available energy, and so the Swedish grid and the Danish grid is thus tied in a way that removes any distinctions between the two. Denmark is thus a terrible example of wind replacing fossil fuels, unless they suddenly would forgo imports and live with only having power 50% of the time. They are a great example of how you can invest in renewable energy as long the issue of grid stability can be solved through imports.
    - hackerlight 4y ago
      Denmark sounds like a big success story. You've got half of locally consumed energy being generated locally from wind and solar, and you're also sending renewable energy to other countries which reduces the amount of fossil fuel they have to burn. They should build even more so they can send even more and have an even bigger impact. And if their neighbors did the same thing and sent excess capacity to each other, then it'd all net off to not needing much storage at all. Maybe 10 percent of supply needs to be met with gas peaker plants when variability gets really bad, prior to storage solutions becoming cost effective. So this case study of Denmark shows there is little substance to the criticisms of renewables.
- fulafel 4y ago
  Renewables obviously enable us to mostly stop using fossil fuels, fossils have just been too cheap because of unpriced externalities. (replace is the wrong word because some of the fossils use can and should just be stopped and not replaced by other energy) There isn't anything mysterious we expect to empirically discover through demonstrations approaching 100%, though of course engineering does incrementally improve and progress. Relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_renewable_electricity_production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_renewable...
- nl 4y ago
  > Renewables have yet to demonstrate the ability to replace fossil fuels in any meaningful way. They seem to top out at 10-20% of the energy mix. This is just utterly wrong. In the UK 43% of power came from renewables in 2021: https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/energy-explained/how-much-uks-energy-renewable https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/energy-explained/how-mu... Even in California renewables are at 33%: https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/2021-total-system-electric-generation https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/califo...
- Brometheus 4y ago
  nearly 50% for Germany https://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/strom-erneuerbare-energien-erstes-halbjahr-101.html https://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/strom-erneuerbare-energ...
orangecat 4y ago
Renewables absolutely can and are "getting us there." It's a solved problem. I hope that's true. So does that mean there's no need for the sweeping societal changes that prominent environmentalists are demanding because we'll be able to maintain our high-energy lifestyles with nearly 100% renewables?

Raydovsky 4y ago

Renewables are a solved problem, but storage of energy to combat the unreliability of renewables isn't. NPP's take about 7 years to build. The latest EPR builds are taking more due to an over complicated design.

ncmncm 4y ago
Storage is not, in fact, a problem. Numerous methods using century-old tech are cheap and practical, and only need to be built out. They are not being built out yet because there is not excess renewable generating capacity to charge them from.

vlovich123 4y ago

Renewables have yet to demonstrate the ability to replace fossil fuels in any meaningful way. They seem to top out at 10-20% of the energy mix. France achieved net 0 many decades ago because they went all in with nuclear whereas their neighbors that went with renewables haven’t gotten anywhere close to that. The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The second best time is now.

dieortin 4y ago
France hasn’t achieved net 0, not even close. And there are several countries with more than 20% renewable energy in their grid.
- godelski 4y ago
  I agree with the first part but not the second. Up until recently (when a lot of their nuclear went offline) they were one of the lowest emitters in Europe. They were comparable to Sweden and Iceland, which have substantially smaller (and more centralized) populations. I'll agree that thinking nuclear will get us all the way to net zero energy emissions is silly, but let's not undermine the great accomplishments France has made. They have been leagues ahead of the rest of Europe. Even at significantly reduced capacity they are still one of the lowest emitters. https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/FI https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/FI
- chamibc 4y ago
  And even those countries in the EU such as Denmark rely on France for electricity imports because no country in the world has any large scale storage solution for renewables.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    It would be stupid to put money into storage before there is excess renewable capacity to charge it from. So, people instead put money into generating capacity. When we have any use for storage, we will build out storage.
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    France imports large amounts of energy during winter, largely from gas and coal producing neighbors.
ncmncm 4y ago
Renewables have long since demonstrated ability to replace fossil fuels, and are being built out at an always increasing rate, already exceeding 20% in many places. France is importing power.
- chamibc 4y ago
  This is plain wrong. France has been one of the most reliable exporters of electricity in EU for over a decade https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_France#/media/File%3AElectricity_export_France.png https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_France...
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    Some of the time. Not this summer, e.g.
laurencerowe 4y ago
> Renewables have yet to demonstrate the ability to replace fossil fuels in any meaningful way. They seem to top out at 10-20% of the energy mix. Denmark has reportedly reached 53.3% of electricity consumption with wind and solar. "The first half of 2022 has been a record-breaking period for green energy production in Denmark. Danish windmills and solar panels produced 10,9 TWh in the first six months of the year – a significant 12% increase from the previous record from 2020. Another all-time high, the fraction of wind and solar power in the total electricity consumption was 53,3%." https://stateofgreen.com/en/news/green-danish-energy-production-at-a-record-high-in-the-first-half-of-2022/ https://stateofgreen.com/en/news/green-danish-energy-product... > France achieved net 0 many decades ago because they went all in with nuclear whereas their neighbors that went with renewables haven’t gotten anywhere close to that. Unfortunately even France no longer seems able to build new nuclear generation capacity at a reasonable cost. While wind, solar, and batteries get ever cheaper, nuclear has gotten more expensive over time. For what it's worth I used to agree with you that Nuclear seemed the only viable way forward, after reading https://www.withouthotair.com https://www.withouthotair.com. However much has changed over the past 14 years since it was published.
- belorn 4y ago
  Denmark reached 100% wind capacity in 2013, 9 years ago, and is today completely dependent on Norway and Sweden to supply hydro energy when demand exceed supply. Around 50% of the energy Denmark consume is from imports. Denmark wind and solar farms do sell a lot of energy to other countries when the weather is optimal, but when its not they have to buy that energy from somewhere. EU ruled a while back that the Swedish energy grid must sell energy to Denmark if there is available energy, and so the Swedish grid and the Danish grid is thus tied in a way that removes any distinctions between the two. Denmark is thus a terrible example of wind replacing fossil fuels, unless they suddenly would forgo imports and live with only having power 50% of the time. They are a great example of how you can invest in renewable energy as long the issue of grid stability can be solved through imports.
  - hackerlight 4y ago
    Denmark sounds like a big success story. You've got half of locally consumed energy being generated locally from wind and solar, and you're also sending renewable energy to other countries which reduces the amount of fossil fuel they have to burn. They should build even more so they can send even more and have an even bigger impact. And if their neighbors did the same thing and sent excess capacity to each other, then it'd all net off to not needing much storage at all. Maybe 10 percent of supply needs to be met with gas peaker plants when variability gets really bad, prior to storage solutions becoming cost effective. So this case study of Denmark shows there is little substance to the criticisms of renewables.
fulafel 4y ago
Renewables obviously enable us to mostly stop using fossil fuels, fossils have just been too cheap because of unpriced externalities. (replace is the wrong word because some of the fossils use can and should just be stopped and not replaced by other energy) There isn't anything mysterious we expect to empirically discover through demonstrations approaching 100%, though of course engineering does incrementally improve and progress. Relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_renewable_electricity_production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_renewable...
nl 4y ago
> Renewables have yet to demonstrate the ability to replace fossil fuels in any meaningful way. They seem to top out at 10-20% of the energy mix. This is just utterly wrong. In the UK 43% of power came from renewables in 2021: https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/energy-explained/how-much-uks-energy-renewable https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/energy-explained/how-mu... Even in California renewables are at 33%: https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/2021-total-system-electric-generation https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/califo...
Brometheus 4y ago
nearly 50% for Germany https://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/strom-erneuerbare-energien-erstes-halbjahr-101.html https://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/strom-erneuerbare-energ...

orangecat 4y ago

Renewables absolutely can and are "getting us there." It's a solved problem. I hope that's true. So does that mean there's no need for the sweeping societal changes that prominent environmentalists are demanding because we'll be able to maintain our high-energy lifestyles with nearly 100% renewables?