3 ms·

I’d wager the amount of livable and arable land we’ll lose due to continued fossil fuel usage would be greater than having a Fukushima every year.

Zigurd 3y ago
This is an interesting argument and let's stipulate it is correct. In that case, take all the oil capex and spend it on power sources that are least costly, least risky, and come on line fastest. Who thinks nuclear is least costly, least risky, and arrives soonest? Anyone? Bueller?
- yawaramin 3y ago
  The problem with those power sources–and this has been pointed out many, many times–is they don't make reliable base load power. The sun doesn't shine at night–no solar power. Winds don't blow on calm days–no wind power. You are forced to build massive battery farms. Batteries require mining chemicals. For the scale we are talking about, you would be strip-mining the earth. You are forced to make incredibly costly upgrades to electric grids–some of which are nearly a century old. Because the current grids can't handle the unreliable, wax-and-wane nature of solar and wind power. You are forced to build gigantic solar panel and wind farms, destroying vast swathes of natural ecology and displacing and destroying many species. You are forced to deal with solar panels and wind turbines at the end of life problem, especially solar panels which contain toxic chemicals which are at risk of leaching into the environment (think 'water table') unless they are properly disposed of. No one has a viable plan for proper disposal of solar panels at the scale we would have to be talking about. And finally–the elephant in the room. The giant energy corporations just won't transition to renewable energy if they don't get a high-enough return on their investments. They want something like 12% ROI. This is extremely unlikely. They've left all their commitments to go renewable conditional so they can weasel out by saying it's not cost-effective for them. Just look at what's happening in reality: https://www.cnbc.com/2023/06/23/siemens-energy-scraps-profit-outlook-as-wind-turbine-troubles-deepen.html https://www.cnbc.com/2023/06/23/siemens-energy-scraps-profit...
  - Zigurd 3y ago
    Nothing about renewables is speculative. Renewables build-out is the largest share of energy capex. If renewables were "destroying many species" it would be all over the news. The 1980s called and wants their "solar will never..." argument back.
    - yawaramin 3y ago
      If that's your only response to all my points, then I think we're done here.
  - pfdietz 3y ago
    The intermittency of renewables adds costs, but these costs are finite and declining. At this point it's likely that going with renewables will be cheaper than going with nuclear, especially as one projects these declines into the next couple of decades (when any nuclear plant started now will have to compete with improved renewable and storage technologies.) A quote: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9837910 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9837910 "On the History and Future of 100% Renewable Energy Systems Research" "With every iteration in the research and with every technological breakthrough in these areas, 100% RE systems become increasingly viable. Even former critics must admit that adding e-fuels through PtX makes 100% RE possible at costs similar to fossil fuels."
    - yawaramin 3y ago
      Theoretical price decreases are not, in fact, convincing fossil fuel companies to get into renewables when they are making record-breaking profits from FF: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jul/16/big-oil-climate-pledges-extreme-heat-fossil-fuel https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jul/16/big-oil-clim... The plan by RE people is 'Let's hope that a hundred different unlikely events all line up exactly right, and we'll be able to go fully RE'. This is not a realistic plan. If you did software engineering like this, you would be laughed out of the room (and then fired).
      - pfdietz 3y ago

Zigurd 3y ago

This is an interesting argument and let's stipulate it is correct. In that case, take all the oil capex and spend it on power sources that are least costly, least risky, and come on line fastest. Who thinks nuclear is least costly, least risky, and arrives soonest? Anyone? Bueller?

yawaramin 3y ago
The problem with those power sources–and this has been pointed out many, many times–is they don't make reliable base load power. The sun doesn't shine at night–no solar power. Winds don't blow on calm days–no wind power. You are forced to build massive battery farms. Batteries require mining chemicals. For the scale we are talking about, you would be strip-mining the earth. You are forced to make incredibly costly upgrades to electric grids–some of which are nearly a century old. Because the current grids can't handle the unreliable, wax-and-wane nature of solar and wind power. You are forced to build gigantic solar panel and wind farms, destroying vast swathes of natural ecology and displacing and destroying many species. You are forced to deal with solar panels and wind turbines at the end of life problem, especially solar panels which contain toxic chemicals which are at risk of leaching into the environment (think 'water table') unless they are properly disposed of. No one has a viable plan for proper disposal of solar panels at the scale we would have to be talking about. And finally–the elephant in the room. The giant energy corporations just won't transition to renewable energy if they don't get a high-enough return on their investments. They want something like 12% ROI. This is extremely unlikely. They've left all their commitments to go renewable conditional so they can weasel out by saying it's not cost-effective for them. Just look at what's happening in reality: https://www.cnbc.com/2023/06/23/siemens-energy-scraps-profit-outlook-as-wind-turbine-troubles-deepen.html https://www.cnbc.com/2023/06/23/siemens-energy-scraps-profit...
- Zigurd 3y ago
  Nothing about renewables is speculative. Renewables build-out is the largest share of energy capex. If renewables were "destroying many species" it would be all over the news. The 1980s called and wants their "solar will never..." argument back.
  - yawaramin 3y ago
    If that's your only response to all my points, then I think we're done here.
- pfdietz 3y ago
  The intermittency of renewables adds costs, but these costs are finite and declining. At this point it's likely that going with renewables will be cheaper than going with nuclear, especially as one projects these declines into the next couple of decades (when any nuclear plant started now will have to compete with improved renewable and storage technologies.) A quote: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9837910 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9837910 "On the History and Future of 100% Renewable Energy Systems Research" "With every iteration in the research and with every technological breakthrough in these areas, 100% RE systems become increasingly viable. Even former critics must admit that adding e-fuels through PtX makes 100% RE possible at costs similar to fossil fuels."
  - yawaramin 3y ago
    Theoretical price decreases are not, in fact, convincing fossil fuel companies to get into renewables when they are making record-breaking profits from FF: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jul/16/big-oil-climate-pledges-extreme-heat-fossil-fuel https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jul/16/big-oil-clim... The plan by RE people is 'Let's hope that a hundred different unlikely events all line up exactly right, and we'll be able to go fully RE'. This is not a realistic plan. If you did software engineering like this, you would be laughed out of the room (and then fired).
    - pfdietz 3y ago