6 ms·

Net watts are a measure of average capacity and are not peak watts. TWh per year is a unit of net power. But you know this and you know the figures I was quotin

Net watts are a measure of average capacity and are not peak watts. TWh per year is a unit of net power. But you know this and you know the figures I was quoting were net because you know the output of the world's nuclear fleet and you know renewables are slightly higher. Just as you said: renewables exceeded the nuclear fleet last year, growing by 50GW net. Production capacity is online for another 100GW net this coming year. China alone has an achievable plan for half a terawatt of new net production, and renewable targets have been consistently exceeded. > Is there a specific reason you insist on this kind of velocity? Global warming is going to gradually increase as a problem over the next 200 years, if we continue our current course, it's not like the world is ending in 2030. This kind of velocity is the pace the renewable industry is operating at, with a clear roadmap to meet the target, and the pace it is necessary to move at to avoid the worst outcomes. If the nuclear industry can't scale to meet it, that's fine. We'll use the technologies that can. > we may be able to triple both over the next 15-20 years. So you're saying if we invest heavily in nuclear it may be able to contribute 5% of primary energy in 15 years? Wind is on track to triple in under half of that, solar in around a quarter. Both are on track to provide a meaningful portion of primary energy in 15-20 years. > Nuclear produced 2.8TW TWh. Which is around 320GW. > As for your "Peak Uranium" hypothesis, I suggest looking at the history for "Peak Oil". Oil was predicted to reach its peak in year 2000, And drilling has gotten more destructive and energy intensive ever since. Oil and gas platforms are resorting to using nuclear, solar, and wind to keep extracting because oil is not a sufficient energy source to extract oil. The predictions about the resources were accurate. The predictions that we'd lean into the insanity of continuing extracting ultra deep oil or tar sands when it's barely energy positive are where it went wrong. > And as far as I can tell, we DO need it (or nuclear in some other form), if we're supposed ween ourselves off fossil fuels this century. Wind and solar may be competitive in some locations up to some production volumes, but they seem to have very diminishing returns above some level, due to storage costs and available land areas. Very nice weasel words. I've never asserted that nuclear can't contribute, only that it cannot match the scale of renewables and suggesting we stop renewable investment to focus on it because only nuclear can scale is a blatant lie that serves only delay decarbonization. You've just reasserted that this is true. Thank you for agreeing. > Maybe we can, some day, have solar panels carpeting the Sahara or even in Outer Space, but that's definitely scifi. Revealing further that you can't comprehend how renewables scale. As a demonstration of how terrible a representation of scale this is: World primary energy is about 17TW or 2kW per person. In the regions that 93% of people live, this takes under 50m^2 per person. There are a few cities like Milan with more people than sunlight, but there is enough space in Tokyo to provide this much net energy for every resident and still have plenty left over for outdoor spaces. The denser regions can import energy heavy goods, and still have enough space for electricity if they really didn't want to put a few shades up on some livestock farms. Simply covering the space rendered uninhabitable by Inkai Uranium mine would provide more energy than the mine does.

trashtester 4y ago
> This kind of velocity is the pace the renewable industry is operating at, with a clear roadmap to meet the target, and the pace it is necessary to move at to avoid the worst outcomes. I disagree. The "worst outcomes" are 200 years into the future, and a ramp up speed of 10 years doesn't matter much for that. > So you're saying if we invest heavily in nuclear it may be able to contribute 5% of primary energy in 15 years? There are different ways to calculate "primary energy". Adjusted for inefficiencies, nuclear is 4.3%. In other words, tripling that means we can shut down at least ~9% of PE worth of fossil fuels plants. Renewables get a similar boost from this approach, of course, at least long as we don't have to store it. https://ourworldindata.org/energy-substitution-method https://ourworldindata.org/energy-substitution-method > So you're saying if we invest heavily in nuclear it may be able to contribute 5% of primary energy in 15 years? No, I'm saying we reduce the unneccesary costs, and let it pay for itself. By comparison, Germany has to impose a 25% "green energy" tax on electricity (including nuclear) to stimulate renewables. > Oil and gas platforms are resorting to using nuclear, solar, and wind to keep extracting because oil is not a sufficient energy source to extract oil. Oil is more valueable as a transportation fuel than as fuel for electricity production. And extraction uses electricity. This is about market price, not EROI. (Also, for instance in Norway, it's about CO2 quotas. Norwegian oil platforms are moving the land based electricity instead of the natural gas they extract alongside the oil for their electricity needs.) EROI for nuclear is still around the highest there is, around 100x. There is massive headroom before EROI for nuclear goes down to unviable levels. (3x) > .... weasel words ... because only nuclear can scale is a blatant lie ... I didn't say only nuclear can scale. I do claim that nuclear is a better source of energy when it's dark and there's no wind. Also, ad hominem attacks doesn't help your case. > Revealing further that you can't comprehend how renewables scale. More ad hominem. Do you want to start a flame war? > 2kW per person. this takes under 50m^2 per person. Maybe you should re-read your sources. Pretty sure you will find that 2kW is around the average output of 50m^2 during the peak of the day. This illustrates a risk of measuring energy in watts. Most such calculations use 4-6 as estimates for number of "hours" worth at such an output, meaning the area needed goes up by a factor of 4-6. So let's say 250m^2. Now, on top of this, the energy tends to be needed either in a different location or at a different time. Batteres with a 70% efficiency increase this to 350m^2 while storing it as H2 at 25% full-cycle-efficiency increases it to 1000m^2. Multiply by the number of people on Earth, and you get a square of 2800 km on each side (8 million km^2). Which is close to the size of the Sahara. That's all if you're planning to use the energy in the same location, and not transporting it anywhere. To be fair, this would be electrical energy, which has higher value than the average primary energy. So only half the size of the Sahara (maybe 1/4 if it's located in the ACTUAL Sahara, since that place is rather sunny.) On the other hand, world energy consumption is going up every year. Btw, unless you put away those ad hominem attacks, I'm not going to reply further.

trashtester 4y ago

> This kind of velocity is the pace the renewable industry is operating at, with a clear roadmap to meet the target, and the pace it is necessary to move at to avoid the worst outcomes. I disagree. The "worst outcomes" are 200 years into the future, and a ramp up speed of 10 years doesn't matter much for that. > So you're saying if we invest heavily in nuclear it may be able to contribute 5% of primary energy in 15 years? There are different ways to calculate "primary energy". Adjusted for inefficiencies, nuclear is 4.3%. In other words, tripling that means we can shut down at least ~9% of PE worth of fossil fuels plants. Renewables get a similar boost from this approach, of course, at least long as we don't have to store it. https://ourworldindata.org/energy-substitution-method https://ourworldindata.org/energy-substitution-method > So you're saying if we invest heavily in nuclear it may be able to contribute 5% of primary energy in 15 years? No, I'm saying we reduce the unneccesary costs, and let it pay for itself. By comparison, Germany has to impose a 25% "green energy" tax on electricity (including nuclear) to stimulate renewables. > Oil and gas platforms are resorting to using nuclear, solar, and wind to keep extracting because oil is not a sufficient energy source to extract oil. Oil is more valueable as a transportation fuel than as fuel for electricity production. And extraction uses electricity. This is about market price, not EROI. (Also, for instance in Norway, it's about CO2 quotas. Norwegian oil platforms are moving the land based electricity instead of the natural gas they extract alongside the oil for their electricity needs.) EROI for nuclear is still around the highest there is, around 100x. There is massive headroom before EROI for nuclear goes down to unviable levels. (3x) > .... weasel words ... because only nuclear can scale is a blatant lie ... I didn't say only nuclear can scale. I do claim that nuclear is a better source of energy when it's dark and there's no wind. Also, ad hominem attacks doesn't help your case. > Revealing further that you can't comprehend how renewables scale. More ad hominem. Do you want to start a flame war? > 2kW per person. this takes under 50m^2 per person. Maybe you should re-read your sources. Pretty sure you will find that 2kW is around the average output of 50m^2 during the peak of the day. This illustrates a risk of measuring energy in watts. Most such calculations use 4-6 as estimates for number of "hours" worth at such an output, meaning the area needed goes up by a factor of 4-6. So let's say 250m^2. Now, on top of this, the energy tends to be needed either in a different location or at a different time. Batteres with a 70% efficiency increase this to 350m^2 while storing it as H2 at 25% full-cycle-efficiency increases it to 1000m^2. Multiply by the number of people on Earth, and you get a square of 2800 km on each side (8 million km^2). Which is close to the size of the Sahara. That's all if you're planning to use the energy in the same location, and not transporting it anywhere. To be fair, this would be electrical energy, which has higher value than the average primary energy. So only half the size of the Sahara (maybe 1/4 if it's located in the ACTUAL Sahara, since that place is rather sunny.) On the other hand, world energy consumption is going up every year. Btw, unless you put away those ad hominem attacks, I'm not going to reply further.