3 ms·
Everyone is assuming/hoping that a majority renewables national energy system is possible/economical. I don't think it is, but even if you do it's a gamble. No
by evilos 3y ago
Everyone is assuming/hoping that a majority renewables national energy system is possible/economical. I don't think it is, but even if you do it's a gamble. No one is sure because it's not been done before. At a minimum you'll have to build several thousands of miles of new transmission and millions of panels/turbines. Those panels/turbines will last maybe 30 years. Batteries aren't going to cut it, you'll need underground hydrogen storage. That's never been done for energy storage before. And hydrogen is a lousy battery, you'll get half your energy back out at best. There's too much uncertainty.
Nuclear fits our existing grid paradigm, and it can be built quickly if we let ourselves. Japan's median reactor build time was under 4 years. France built out their nuclear fleet in 15 to 20 years. It's literally been done before.
- Manuel_D 3y agoA bit pedantic here, but majority renewable national energy systems have been built but only with hydroelectricity. Norway and some other countries generate >95% of their electricity from dams. But of course, dams can't be built everywhere, so it's not a scalable solution.
- evilos 3y agoFair, I meant 'intermittent' when I said 'renewable'. Geothermal and hydro are very different since they can be relied upon for the most part. Hydro sometimes has issues with water levels, which may be exacerbated by climate change. That's the other baffling part about advocating for solar/wind grids. We're anticipating major disruptions. Why would we want to be MORE exposed to climate change?