4 ms·

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

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
    - jvanderbot 1y ago
      You're stuck on the same logic loop of "You can't use nuclear because there isn't enough solar", when nobody said we should only use nuclear. OP wanted to know if solar would be sufficient for MN winters, and if not, what else would be required. He wanted a "Convincing analysis". The sun doesn't rise above 30deg over the horizon, for weeks. (MN > 45deg latitude, and earth tilts away by up to 23.5 deg). It gets below freezing for months, sometimes below zero for weeks. Sometimes below -10F for days (although that's becoming less common). These are legitimate questions. We're not going to find common ground, that's OK. Let's just stop circling around each other and/or worrying about it. Cheers.
      - micromacrofoot 1y ago
        What happens when the sun burns out is also a legitimate question, but similar in that we also probably won't be required to answer it within our lifetimes.

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
  - jvanderbot 1y ago
    You're stuck on the same logic loop of "You can't use nuclear because there isn't enough solar", when nobody said we should only use nuclear. OP wanted to know if solar would be sufficient for MN winters, and if not, what else would be required. He wanted a "Convincing analysis". The sun doesn't rise above 30deg over the horizon, for weeks. (MN > 45deg latitude, and earth tilts away by up to 23.5 deg). It gets below freezing for months, sometimes below zero for weeks. Sometimes below -10F for days (although that's becoming less common). These are legitimate questions. We're not going to find common ground, that's OK. Let's just stop circling around each other and/or worrying about it. Cheers.
    - micromacrofoot 1y ago
      What happens when the sun burns out is also a legitimate question, but similar in that we also probably won't be required to answer it within our lifetimes.