3 ms·

> Investing in nuclear today prolongs the climate crisis. This kind of willfully blind thinking continues our reliance on fossil fuels. There is a need for rel

> Investing in nuclear today prolongs the climate crisis. This kind of willfully blind thinking continues our reliance on fossil fuels. There is a need for reliable energy that cannot yet be met by renewable energy. For this specific reason, Russia funded German opposition to nuclear power.

Gwypaas 4y ago
Let's fix the +90% that is trivial without storage and work on the last percents when we get there in the 2030s. The research finds it easily solvable today, but a holistic approach is necessary. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%25_renewable_energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%25_renewable_energy
- acidburnNSA 4y ago
  "Easily solvable" is highly dubious. The guy behind the 100% renewables no nuclear allowed push sued his scientific critics for publishing a critique of his work and was eventually forced to pay their legal fees. [1] But that aside, just looking at the sheer magnitude of capacity mentioned in his papers, one can see that it's not even remotely easy or trivial. See eye-watering Table 2 in [2] [1] https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/07/11/stanford-prof-ordered-to-pay-legal-fees-after-dropping-10-million-defamation-case-against-another-scientist/ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/07/11/stanford-prof-ordered... [2] https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/USStatesWWS.pdf https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/USSt...
  - Gwypaas 4y ago
    Now you are assassinating the character of a person I have not mentioned. Is that what is necessary to sell nuclear? Do you bet against this? https://i.imgur.com/JYMNAWR.png https://i.imgur.com/JYMNAWR.png
    - acidburnNSA 4y ago
      Nope, I am pointing out that 100% renewables is far harder than claimed, that criticism has been suppressed, and providing refs to back up my points. I'm pro anything low carbon. I love wind and solar and hydro and nuclear. These no-nuclear people are trying to get us to tie a hand behind our backs for no reason in the midst of a climate crisis. Energy generation choices are not a zero sum game. Lots of antinuclear people mistakenly believe that pro-nuclear people are also anti-wind or anti-solar when in fact we are usually just anti-fossil and biofuel.
      - Gwypaas 4y ago
        We can agree that 90% is trivially solvable. That will get deployed shortly. So you are telling me that a peaking nuclear plant will solve the last 10% when it comes online at earliest 2040? What problem are we even solving at that time other rather than brute forcing nuclear into the solution? Then try put that nuclear power plant on a marginal price market. What do you expect to happen?

Gwypaas 4y ago

Let's fix the +90% that is trivial without storage and work on the last percents when we get there in the 2030s. The research finds it easily solvable today, but a holistic approach is necessary. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%25_renewable_energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%25_renewable_energy

acidburnNSA 4y ago
"Easily solvable" is highly dubious. The guy behind the 100% renewables no nuclear allowed push sued his scientific critics for publishing a critique of his work and was eventually forced to pay their legal fees. [1] But that aside, just looking at the sheer magnitude of capacity mentioned in his papers, one can see that it's not even remotely easy or trivial. See eye-watering Table 2 in [2] [1] https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/07/11/stanford-prof-ordered-to-pay-legal-fees-after-dropping-10-million-defamation-case-against-another-scientist/ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/07/11/stanford-prof-ordered... [2] https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/USStatesWWS.pdf https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/USSt...
- Gwypaas 4y ago
  Now you are assassinating the character of a person I have not mentioned. Is that what is necessary to sell nuclear? Do you bet against this? https://i.imgur.com/JYMNAWR.png https://i.imgur.com/JYMNAWR.png
  - acidburnNSA 4y ago
    Nope, I am pointing out that 100% renewables is far harder than claimed, that criticism has been suppressed, and providing refs to back up my points. I'm pro anything low carbon. I love wind and solar and hydro and nuclear. These no-nuclear people are trying to get us to tie a hand behind our backs for no reason in the midst of a climate crisis. Energy generation choices are not a zero sum game. Lots of antinuclear people mistakenly believe that pro-nuclear people are also anti-wind or anti-solar when in fact we are usually just anti-fossil and biofuel.
    - Gwypaas 4y ago
      We can agree that 90% is trivially solvable. That will get deployed shortly. So you are telling me that a peaking nuclear plant will solve the last 10% when it comes online at earliest 2040? What problem are we even solving at that time other rather than brute forcing nuclear into the solution? Then try put that nuclear power plant on a marginal price market. What do you expect to happen?