4 ms·

So we waited for the renewables and lost another decade. Solar and wind are up to perhaps 10% global usage? Maybe we can get it to 25% by 2030? Hopefully we c

So we waited for the renewables and lost another decade. Solar and wind are up to perhaps 10% global usage? Maybe we can get it to 25% by 2030? Hopefully we can stop building coal plants. Incredible emissions. 40% of global electricity… And Germany is restarting https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/19/world/europe/germany-russia-gas.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/19/world/europe/germany-russ...

forgetfreeman 4y ago
If your target is 2030 that's not enough time to permit and construct a single conventional nuclear power plant in North America. The permitting process alone typically runs 5 years or more before ground is even broken on construction.
- melling 4y ago
  Yeah, yeah, I heard all this 10 years ago. I imagine you’ll be saying the same thing in 2030 when coal usage will be about 35% of global electricity.
  - forgetfreeman 4y ago
    I'm not sure I follow you here. It takes 12+ years to permit and construct a nuclear power plant in North America. This isn't a matter of opinion but of observed reality. They take on average 7 years to build with a 5+ year long permitting process before ground is broken. So unless you're proposing the government imminent domain a bunch of reactors into existence I don't understand what we're even talking about?
    - thrown_22 4y ago
      That the best time to start building a nuclear plant was 12 years ago. The second best is _now_.
      - cycomanic 4y ago
        No, we can build double the capacity if we build wind and solar now and the wind and solar will reduce or CO2 emissions while the nuclear plant is still in the planning/building phase, why should we build nuclear?
        thrown_22 4y ago
        Double of zero is still zero.
        cycomanic 4y ago
        Do you have an actual argument? Offshore wind has a capacity factor of 60% that is close to nuclear power plants. If you locally distribute your generation, the chances of power falling to zero goes to zero.
        thrown_22 4y ago
        And completely shuts down about once a month. I'm sure we can deal with a 30% electricity deficit that happens randomly with a few days notice. We can shut down unimportant things like residential power. No one really needs lightbulbs every day of the month after all.
        cycomanic 4y ago
        Do you know what a capacity factor is? Do you understand how overprovisioning works and why we would also need it with nuclear power (at a much higher price)? Do you have any numbers to back up your once a month claim and 30% deficit or are you just making stuff up?
        thrown_22 4y ago
        Yes.
    - inkblotuniverse 4y ago
      Maybe permitting shouldn't take 5 years?
      - forgetfreeman 4y ago
        Maybe not. Between NIMBY groups and the political polarization around climate change I think we can all pretty vividly imagine what Twitter would look like 60 seconds after draft legislation to this effect was proposed.
tchaffee 4y ago
Why did you wait? A poor country like Brazil is already 80% renewable for electricity. You cannot buy pure gasoline at the pump. It's mixed with a minimum of renewable ethanol, and that minimum has been going up every year for over a decade. Almost all cars run on pure ethanol and some consumers choose to never use petrol based fuel for their car. Diesel is not pure either. It's mixed with biodiesel by law and that percentage goes up every year. If a poor country can achieve this, there is nothing stopping much richer countries. You didn't lose a decade due to renewable capabilities. You lost a decade due electing the wrong politicians, influenced by big oil. Carter installed solar panels on the White House. Reagan removed them two years later. It's nonsense like that that resulted in your lost decades. While other countries were already racing ahead.
- otabdeveloper4 4y ago
  > renewable ethanol Is it really renewable? (I don't know, but I assume biofuels are only viable with massive fertilizer subsidies. Also, I hope "renewable" doesn't mean "let's cut down the Amazon rainforest and wait 200 years for it to grow back".)
  - tchaffee 4y ago
    You get a new crop 2x a year as opposed to waiting 180 million years for new fossil fuels, so yeah, it's really renewable. As far as net carbon, I'd like to see the math but since plants take carbon out of the air it's far closer to carbon neutral than burning fossil fuels. Cutting down the Amazon to power cars would indeed be foolish but the same folks protecting the Amazon are the same folks pushing renewables. Likewise, the current president turned a blind eye to deforestation while pushing for more fossil fuels. For the time being if you want to protect the Amazon it's the renewables folks you need to get behind.

forgetfreeman 4y ago

If your target is 2030 that's not enough time to permit and construct a single conventional nuclear power plant in North America. The permitting process alone typically runs 5 years or more before ground is even broken on construction.

melling 4y ago
Yeah, yeah, I heard all this 10 years ago. I imagine you’ll be saying the same thing in 2030 when coal usage will be about 35% of global electricity.
- forgetfreeman 4y ago
  I'm not sure I follow you here. It takes 12+ years to permit and construct a nuclear power plant in North America. This isn't a matter of opinion but of observed reality. They take on average 7 years to build with a 5+ year long permitting process before ground is broken. So unless you're proposing the government imminent domain a bunch of reactors into existence I don't understand what we're even talking about?
  - thrown_22 4y ago
    That the best time to start building a nuclear plant was 12 years ago. The second best is _now_.
    - cycomanic 4y ago
      No, we can build double the capacity if we build wind and solar now and the wind and solar will reduce or CO2 emissions while the nuclear plant is still in the planning/building phase, why should we build nuclear?
      - thrown_22 4y ago
        Double of zero is still zero.
        cycomanic 4y ago
        Do you have an actual argument? Offshore wind has a capacity factor of 60% that is close to nuclear power plants. If you locally distribute your generation, the chances of power falling to zero goes to zero.
        thrown_22 4y ago
        And completely shuts down about once a month. I'm sure we can deal with a 30% electricity deficit that happens randomly with a few days notice. We can shut down unimportant things like residential power. No one really needs lightbulbs every day of the month after all.
        cycomanic 4y ago
        Do you know what a capacity factor is? Do you understand how overprovisioning works and why we would also need it with nuclear power (at a much higher price)? Do you have any numbers to back up your once a month claim and 30% deficit or are you just making stuff up?
        thrown_22 4y ago
        Yes.
  - inkblotuniverse 4y ago
    Maybe permitting shouldn't take 5 years?
    - forgetfreeman 4y ago
      Maybe not. Between NIMBY groups and the political polarization around climate change I think we can all pretty vividly imagine what Twitter would look like 60 seconds after draft legislation to this effect was proposed.

tchaffee 4y ago

Why did you wait? A poor country like Brazil is already 80% renewable for electricity. You cannot buy pure gasoline at the pump. It's mixed with a minimum of renewable ethanol, and that minimum has been going up every year for over a decade. Almost all cars run on pure ethanol and some consumers choose to never use petrol based fuel for their car. Diesel is not pure either. It's mixed with biodiesel by law and that percentage goes up every year. If a poor country can achieve this, there is nothing stopping much richer countries. You didn't lose a decade due to renewable capabilities. You lost a decade due electing the wrong politicians, influenced by big oil. Carter installed solar panels on the White House. Reagan removed them two years later. It's nonsense like that that resulted in your lost decades. While other countries were already racing ahead.

otabdeveloper4 4y ago
> renewable ethanol Is it really renewable? (I don't know, but I assume biofuels are only viable with massive fertilizer subsidies. Also, I hope "renewable" doesn't mean "let's cut down the Amazon rainforest and wait 200 years for it to grow back".)
- tchaffee 4y ago
  You get a new crop 2x a year as opposed to waiting 180 million years for new fossil fuels, so yeah, it's really renewable. As far as net carbon, I'd like to see the math but since plants take carbon out of the air it's far closer to carbon neutral than burning fossil fuels. Cutting down the Amazon to power cars would indeed be foolish but the same folks protecting the Amazon are the same folks pushing renewables. Likewise, the current president turned a blind eye to deforestation while pushing for more fossil fuels. For the time being if you want to protect the Amazon it's the renewables folks you need to get behind.