3 ms·

It's not the only possible thing to do but the most surefire way of removing carbon from electrical grids.

• ViewTrick1002 2y ago
  Spending 3-10x as much depending on if you compare with offshore wind or solar? Given the differences in cost investing nuclear power today prolongs our fight against climate change. For every dollar invested in nuclear power we get less effect and need to wait longer for the effect to materialize compared to renewables. https://www.lazard.com/media/xemfey0k/lazards-lcoeplus-june-2024-_vf.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/xemfey0k/lazards-lcoeplus-june-...
  • Krssst 2y ago
    Yet a grid scale replacement for coal/gas using NREs still failed to materialize in the last decade. NREs definitely help with decarbonizing (and pushing NREs is better than doing nothing), but for some reason countries deploying NREs never seem to retire almost all fossil fuel production from the grid.
    • ViewTrick1002 2y ago
      It is simply economics. In most grids the renewable penetration has been low enough to not warrant any storage, or they have hydro to balance it in for example Portugals case. Now the battery revolution has begun and gas is being forced off the grids. https://theprogressplaybook.com/2024/06/20/gas-power-output-nearly-halves-in-california-in-one-year-as-batteries-steal-the-show/ https://theprogressplaybook.com/2024/06/20/gas-power-output-... We also need to understand that we are not aiming for perfection. We are aiming for good enough. If the emergency reserve for the extremely cold winter week in 2040 is fossil fuels that is good enough. We are talking 1% of our total consumption. As long as we can force it to transition to efuels or be replaced when those are the most pressing issues still to tackle.