3 ms·

75% of carbon emissions come from energy production. If this is actually an emergency, the only feasible option at the moment is nuclear power. If anybody is t

75% of carbon emissions come from energy production. If this is actually an emergency, the only feasible option at the moment is nuclear power. If anybody is talking about anything other than nuclear power, I question their motivations.

matthewdgreen 3y ago
If you're still saying things like "there is no viable path except nuclear power" in 2024, then you're not paying any attention to what's happening in the world right now. There is literally no economic path to deploying enough nuclear to make a difference right on the timescales necessary to fight climate change, while renewable construction is on an exponential tear (particularly in China). Storage costs are also dropping on an exponential curve. Meanwhile nuclear costs and deployment aren't seeing anything similar. https://www.rystadenergy.com/news/china-s-solar-capacity-surges-expected-to-top-1-tw-by-2026 https://www.rystadenergy.com/news/china-s-solar-capacity-sur...
- jjtheblunt 3y ago
  exponential? is there a link where i can read about the storage costs dropping exponentially and renewable construction growing exponentially? (i thought china was in a construction freeze with a huge quantity of incomplete high rises, for example)
- marcosdumay 3y ago
  Ouch that link. When people stop ignoring exponential growth, they just decide to project it forward without any consideration. I really doubt China's electricity usage will more than double until 2026. Or that it will be 100% (or rather, 300%?) replaced by solar.
  - matthewdgreen 3y ago
    China is aiming to build 206 GW of additional renewables (excluding coal and nuclear) in 2024, and they reached their 2023 targets ahead of schedule.
    - marcosdumay 3y ago
      And they probably will. The article says they'll have 5 times that, from solar alone, by 2026. What they almost certainly won't, there's nobody to buy that much energy and it's not enough time to create some industry that could use it.
- xedrac 3y ago
  You keep using that word (exponential), but I do not think it means what you think it means.
  - matthewdgreen 3y ago
    It means that growth in renewable deployment over the past several years can be fit to an exponential curve, and shows no signs of immediate slowdown. If what you think I’m saying is that growth will continue on that trajectory forever, then that’s a very foolish thought.
    - xedrac 3y ago
      I'm sorry my comment was a little snarky. What I meant to say is that is not an exponential curve. It may have tracked with a quadratic curve, or even a cubic curve, but not an exponential curve. In mathematics, a curve that grows exponentially is (loose definition) one where the exponent is increasing as you move along the x-axis. f(x)=2^x is an example of an exponential curve. f(x)=x^2 is an example of a quadratic curve that may better describe what you're referring to.
      - matthewdgreen 3y ago
        In this case we're talking about a situation where growth occurs by a (relatively) constant percentage over a period of time. Between 2000-2022 solar capacity has been increasing at about 37% per year, doubling every 2.2 years (per Wikipedia) and that trend appears to be on track to continue for at least a few more years, until (obviously) it levels out because the world is finite.
shermantanktop 3y ago
Question away, your questioning is noted. Nuclear has a long lead time. Setting aside safety concerns, any realistic shift to accelerating nuclear would not help us much in the 10 year range. If we are most concerned about tipping points, which tbh appear real but impossible to predict, a nearer term but less effective shift to renewables would be warranted. When I say “realistic” I mean in the current political and cultural climate. If we posit that we can do anything we want, dictator-style, that’s a thought experiment. At which point I’m totally with you: latest designs, aggressive funding and incentives for both r&d and actual projects, etc. That’d complement the progress we’ve made with renewables.
- stillbourne 3y ago
  > Setting aside safety concerns Nuclear is the safest energy source per kilo of fuel mined and spent.
  - shermantanktop 3y ago
    There are numerous ways to look at safety here. All else being equal, non-nuclear-weapon states wishing to arm with nuclear weapons would hate a total ban on nuclear energy, due to dual-use mining acting as a cover for their arms development. Is that a sufficient justification for actually imposing such a ban? I personally don’t think so, but reasonable people can disagree on that.
- realusername 3y ago
  I've heard this argument that it's too long to build 10 years ago as well, the best time to plant a tree is now I guess as the proverb says? And it's not like climate change will stop in the next 10 years anyways.
breakyerself 3y ago
Nuclear probably has a place in phasing out fossil fuels, but the idea that its the only solution for every situation and nothing else is worth talking about is as idiotic as writing off nuclear altogether. We need a price on carbon and individual actors in the market should decide what alternative is best for their given situation. Picking a specific technology and then trying to force on everyone is inefficient and needlessly expensive regardless of which technology you choose. The world is complicated and there are almost never silver bullets. Especially in this case.
- r3d0c 3y ago
  nobody made that argument
  - breakyerself 3y ago
    "If this is actually an emergency, the only feasible option at the moment is nuclear power. If anybody is talking about anything other than nuclear power, I question their motivations." Seems close enough
Tarsul 3y ago
Why not spending less energy?
- r3d0c 3y ago
  we can do both, but energy efficiency is only a small part of it; still need to transition the bulk of energy away from fossil fuels
pompino 3y ago
You need a plan to to execute at the policy level, and at the field/ground level - That is always the hard part. "Lets do X, its so much better than Y" - yeah, we know, but please also propose a practical plan of how to accomplish that. Otherwise, we're all just sitting around nodding heads. >If anybody is talking about anything other than nuclear power, I question their motivations. And what will this accomplish?
p1mrx 3y ago
There are places in the world where a robust continent-spanning grid of renewables could compete with nuclear, but that's also a difficult problem to solve.

matthewdgreen 3y ago

If you're still saying things like "there is no viable path except nuclear power" in 2024, then you're not paying any attention to what's happening in the world right now. There is literally no economic path to deploying enough nuclear to make a difference right on the timescales necessary to fight climate change, while renewable construction is on an exponential tear (particularly in China). Storage costs are also dropping on an exponential curve. Meanwhile nuclear costs and deployment aren't seeing anything similar. https://www.rystadenergy.com/news/china-s-solar-capacity-surges-expected-to-top-1-tw-by-2026 https://www.rystadenergy.com/news/china-s-solar-capacity-sur...

jjtheblunt 3y ago
exponential? is there a link where i can read about the storage costs dropping exponentially and renewable construction growing exponentially? (i thought china was in a construction freeze with a huge quantity of incomplete high rises, for example)
marcosdumay 3y ago
Ouch that link. When people stop ignoring exponential growth, they just decide to project it forward without any consideration. I really doubt China's electricity usage will more than double until 2026. Or that it will be 100% (or rather, 300%?) replaced by solar.
- matthewdgreen 3y ago
  China is aiming to build 206 GW of additional renewables (excluding coal and nuclear) in 2024, and they reached their 2023 targets ahead of schedule.
  - marcosdumay 3y ago
    And they probably will. The article says they'll have 5 times that, from solar alone, by 2026. What they almost certainly won't, there's nobody to buy that much energy and it's not enough time to create some industry that could use it.
xedrac 3y ago
You keep using that word (exponential), but I do not think it means what you think it means.
- matthewdgreen 3y ago
  It means that growth in renewable deployment over the past several years can be fit to an exponential curve, and shows no signs of immediate slowdown. If what you think I’m saying is that growth will continue on that trajectory forever, then that’s a very foolish thought.
  - xedrac 3y ago
    I'm sorry my comment was a little snarky. What I meant to say is that is not an exponential curve. It may have tracked with a quadratic curve, or even a cubic curve, but not an exponential curve. In mathematics, a curve that grows exponentially is (loose definition) one where the exponent is increasing as you move along the x-axis. f(x)=2^x is an example of an exponential curve. f(x)=x^2 is an example of a quadratic curve that may better describe what you're referring to.
    - matthewdgreen 3y ago
      In this case we're talking about a situation where growth occurs by a (relatively) constant percentage over a period of time. Between 2000-2022 solar capacity has been increasing at about 37% per year, doubling every 2.2 years (per Wikipedia) and that trend appears to be on track to continue for at least a few more years, until (obviously) it levels out because the world is finite.

shermantanktop 3y ago

Question away, your questioning is noted. Nuclear has a long lead time. Setting aside safety concerns, any realistic shift to accelerating nuclear would not help us much in the 10 year range. If we are most concerned about tipping points, which tbh appear real but impossible to predict, a nearer term but less effective shift to renewables would be warranted. When I say “realistic” I mean in the current political and cultural climate. If we posit that we can do anything we want, dictator-style, that’s a thought experiment. At which point I’m totally with you: latest designs, aggressive funding and incentives for both r&d and actual projects, etc. That’d complement the progress we’ve made with renewables.

stillbourne 3y ago
> Setting aside safety concerns Nuclear is the safest energy source per kilo of fuel mined and spent.
- shermantanktop 3y ago
  There are numerous ways to look at safety here. All else being equal, non-nuclear-weapon states wishing to arm with nuclear weapons would hate a total ban on nuclear energy, due to dual-use mining acting as a cover for their arms development. Is that a sufficient justification for actually imposing such a ban? I personally don’t think so, but reasonable people can disagree on that.
realusername 3y ago
I've heard this argument that it's too long to build 10 years ago as well, the best time to plant a tree is now I guess as the proverb says? And it's not like climate change will stop in the next 10 years anyways.

breakyerself 3y ago

Nuclear probably has a place in phasing out fossil fuels, but the idea that its the only solution for every situation and nothing else is worth talking about is as idiotic as writing off nuclear altogether. We need a price on carbon and individual actors in the market should decide what alternative is best for their given situation. Picking a specific technology and then trying to force on everyone is inefficient and needlessly expensive regardless of which technology you choose. The world is complicated and there are almost never silver bullets. Especially in this case.

r3d0c 3y ago
nobody made that argument
- breakyerself 3y ago
  "If this is actually an emergency, the only feasible option at the moment is nuclear power. If anybody is talking about anything other than nuclear power, I question their motivations." Seems close enough

Tarsul 3y ago

Why not spending less energy?

r3d0c 3y ago
we can do both, but energy efficiency is only a small part of it; still need to transition the bulk of energy away from fossil fuels

pompino 3y ago

You need a plan to to execute at the policy level, and at the field/ground level - That is always the hard part. "Lets do X, its so much better than Y" - yeah, we know, but please also propose a practical plan of how to accomplish that. Otherwise, we're all just sitting around nodding heads. >If anybody is talking about anything other than nuclear power, I question their motivations. And what will this accomplish?

p1mrx 3y ago

There are places in the world where a robust continent-spanning grid of renewables could compete with nuclear, but that's also a difficult problem to solve.