3 ms·

The minnesota problem always comes up in this discussion and realistically if we replaced all viable capacity outside of cold dark areas of the world it would b

The minnesota problem always comes up in this discussion and realistically if we replaced all viable capacity outside of cold dark areas of the world it would be fine to continue burning gas there, we're not even close to renewable saturation to even think about minnesota

coldpie 1y ago
Well, our power needs are going up, and so we have to build new capacity. The question is what to build? These make for interesting discussions because there are many options on the table for places like Minnesota. No one's discussing the article about Texas's 500th successful solar farm deployment :)
jvanderbot 1y ago
So, the entire nation of Canada gets a free pass to burn all the gas they want? And Russia? And the northern EU? And many parts of China, Japan, northern US (NYC!? Buffalo?). Northern Italy, Germany, Switzerland? Does everyone who dips below 0 deg F get to burn gas? -10F? If the infra remains in place with that kind of demand, don't you see the costs being low enough that people elsewhere will want to do that rather than transition to carbon-free for the fun of it? It's hand waved away like this, but did anyone do the analysis as suggested? My guess is the results will not be as easy to wave away as you suggest. But OTOH, maybe heat pumps + overcapacity solar arrays will do it. Who knows?
- micromacrofoot 1y ago
  I'm not sure why I have to repeat myself, but yes, if we had 100% capacity for renewables in non-cold areas (which we're not even close to, even 80% would be miraculous) we would have decades of more time to solve these issues in cold areas. They don't have to be of equal priority. We could ignore them completely and focus on the most viable areas and have years and years of work to be done. We are not building nearly as fast as we should. Minnesota, Russia, Buffalo, et al are not a reason to delay significantly ramping up renewables in other places. This is not a worthwhile subject to discuss in this context. It's rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic.
  - jvanderbot 1y ago
    You have to repeat yourself because you're adding information when you state it again. Compare: > if we replaced all viable capacity outside of cold dark areas of the world it would be fine to continue burning gas there with > we would have decades of more time to solve these issues in cold areas As in: Ignore vs Delay. It's clear in hindsight, but wasn't on first reading.
    - micromacrofoot 1y ago
      ignore vs delay is irrelevant, if saying "lets ignore it forever" lets us build capacity in other areas faster then let's say "lets ignore it forever" the point is that it's not a problem that should slow down adoption of renewables everywhere else, we don't need to debate nuclear vs renewables because of cold while non-cold areas are still burning tons of fossil fuels constantly saying "but what about cold!" only serves to add further fuel to the constant drag created by the fossil fuel industry, they love these arguments because it sows consumer doubt — they go as far as to fund anti-renewable activism under the guise of environmentalism to a similar effect
      - jvanderbot 1y ago
        It is not necessary to slow down deployment of solar power in, say, Texas, to also answer the question of "What should we do in Minnesota". Nobody implied we shouldn't use renewable power elsewhere until we figure that out. We should not adopt a fixed, falsely dichotomous mindset about this. There are lots of engineers and scientists, and it'd be well past the point of diminishing returns to focus them all on one regional problem at a time. We can do both. Yes, if we are forced to make that choice, your logic is sound. But we are not, and nobody ever implied we were.
        micromacrofoot 1y ago
        the original comment I was replying to suggested using nuclear in minnesota because renewables won't work well enough there, which is almost completely irrelevant at this point in time with the low rate of renewable adoption... minnesota is nowhere close to full sunny-day utilization and won't be at its current rate for decades

coldpie 1y ago

Well, our power needs are going up, and so we have to build new capacity. The question is what to build? These make for interesting discussions because there are many options on the table for places like Minnesota. No one's discussing the article about Texas's 500th successful solar farm deployment :)

jvanderbot 1y ago

So, the entire nation of Canada gets a free pass to burn all the gas they want? And Russia? And the northern EU? And many parts of China, Japan, northern US (NYC!? Buffalo?). Northern Italy, Germany, Switzerland? Does everyone who dips below 0 deg F get to burn gas? -10F? If the infra remains in place with that kind of demand, don't you see the costs being low enough that people elsewhere will want to do that rather than transition to carbon-free for the fun of it? It's hand waved away like this, but did anyone do the analysis as suggested? My guess is the results will not be as easy to wave away as you suggest. But OTOH, maybe heat pumps + overcapacity solar arrays will do it. Who knows?

micromacrofoot 1y ago
I'm not sure why I have to repeat myself, but yes, if we had 100% capacity for renewables in non-cold areas (which we're not even close to, even 80% would be miraculous) we would have decades of more time to solve these issues in cold areas. They don't have to be of equal priority. We could ignore them completely and focus on the most viable areas and have years and years of work to be done. We are not building nearly as fast as we should. Minnesota, Russia, Buffalo, et al are not a reason to delay significantly ramping up renewables in other places. This is not a worthwhile subject to discuss in this context. It's rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic.
- jvanderbot 1y ago
  You have to repeat yourself because you're adding information when you state it again. Compare: > if we replaced all viable capacity outside of cold dark areas of the world it would be fine to continue burning gas there with > we would have decades of more time to solve these issues in cold areas As in: Ignore vs Delay. It's clear in hindsight, but wasn't on first reading.
  - micromacrofoot 1y ago
    ignore vs delay is irrelevant, if saying "lets ignore it forever" lets us build capacity in other areas faster then let's say "lets ignore it forever" the point is that it's not a problem that should slow down adoption of renewables everywhere else, we don't need to debate nuclear vs renewables because of cold while non-cold areas are still burning tons of fossil fuels constantly saying "but what about cold!" only serves to add further fuel to the constant drag created by the fossil fuel industry, they love these arguments because it sows consumer doubt — they go as far as to fund anti-renewable activism under the guise of environmentalism to a similar effect
    - jvanderbot 1y ago
      It is not necessary to slow down deployment of solar power in, say, Texas, to also answer the question of "What should we do in Minnesota". Nobody implied we shouldn't use renewable power elsewhere until we figure that out. We should not adopt a fixed, falsely dichotomous mindset about this. There are lots of engineers and scientists, and it'd be well past the point of diminishing returns to focus them all on one regional problem at a time. We can do both. Yes, if we are forced to make that choice, your logic is sound. But we are not, and nobody ever implied we were.
      - micromacrofoot 1y ago
        the original comment I was replying to suggested using nuclear in minnesota because renewables won't work well enough there, which is almost completely irrelevant at this point in time with the low rate of renewable adoption... minnesota is nowhere close to full sunny-day utilization and won't be at its current rate for decades