3 ms·

never mentioned CO2 for renewables - i mentioned storing energy from them. that's the problem.

• tcfhgj 2y ago
  why?
  • Xelbair 2y ago
    because storing it in any way is extremely inefficient - the best solution we have is pumped-storage hydroelectricity with at most 70-80% efficiency. Renewables aren't available 24/7, as they work in cycles in most cases(sunlight, tides, waves, wind - geothermal and hydroelectric is an exception, but latter also has problems with damages to ecosystem, and handling sediment travel along the rivers) - this is the most basic problem with them. Grid demands electricity in a way that does not align with the renevable's production, so you need buffers. So you need to build both energy storage, and energy generation - both are source of pollutants, and eRoI over the whole lifecycle isn't actually that impressive. It is a way to go though, but we are far off from fully transitioning to it. if you genuinely have to ask that question, you need to read more about energy before you start discussing it. and especially about modern nuclear reactor designs, and how catastrophe in Chernobyl happened(forced orders from above, basically a human failure)
    • tcfhgj 2y ago
      not why storing, but why does storing produce much co2? even low efficiency (e.g. hydrogen) is tolerable when renewables otherwise would go to waste
      • Xelbair 2y ago
        because you have to build it - construction machines, concrete, transportation of material to construction site and all that - does that not produce pollution? Think of whole lifecycle. also the amount of storage you have to build also damages the ecosystem.
        • tcfhgj 2y ago
          okay, difference to nuclear power? (probably requires even more concrete)
          • Xelbair 2y ago
            total energy output per required materials over it's lifecycle. by orders of magnitude. and constant power output requiring less buffers to store electricity, hence less waste. It's not even close in the same ballpark.
            • tcfhgj 2y ago
              storage itself IS the buffer and will use less concrete than nuclear pp, except you want to build potential storage using concrete blocks or pumped water storage. An not every materials production implies inherent co2 emissions.
              • Xelbair 2y ago
                most of them do, also have you heard about quantity? the amount of storage build for spent nuclear fuel+energy buffer vs buffer for just renewables aren't even in same ballpark. Just do a simple fermi estimation. Btw - the white "smoke" coming out from cooling towers of nuclear power-plant are pure water vapor. And that's not even going into MSFTs or other reactor types. just traditional ones. Honestly, such blind faith is actually hurting renewables movement by giving climate change deniers more ammo to pummel the movement with.
                • tcfhgj 2y ago
                  > the amount of storage build for spent nuclear fuel+energy buffer I meant the amount of concrete needed (nuclear ppl vs energy storage) > such blind faith is actually hurting renewables movement by giving climate change deniers more ammo to pummel the movement with. what faith? renewable vs nuclear debate has nothing to do with the question of the existence of climate change