3 ms·
No, I am not for fuels like coal, natural gas etc. I am pro solar and pro windpower. I didn't state that because the focus on the article/discussion is nuclear.
by spacefight 12y ago
No, I am not for fuels like coal, natural gas etc. I am pro solar and pro windpower. I didn't state that because the focus on the article/discussion is nuclear.
- maaku 12y agoAh, so you're pro coal and natual gas then. You do know that it is these source of energy that the grid is engineered to fall back on to even out fluctuations in supply? And that even if the grid was "100%" renewable, it'd end up supplying something like 60% of the aggregate energy from these fallback sources? You can't escape the choice. 100% renewable is a fantasy.
- spacefight 12y ago"You can't escape the choice. 100% renewable is a fantasy." It might not be there yet, but it will eventually. How the grid is engineered now is not what it will be in 50y to come. And no, I am not pro coal and natural gas. Don't put words in my mouth, thank you.
- snowwrestler 12y agoI am also pro solar and wind. But the reality is that the globe, and the U.S., get only a couple percentage points of electrical generation from solar and wind right now. They are mostly future promise, and it's easy to be for that. Even deployed at large scale, solar and wind are not capable of providing consistent base load, or handling spikes. There must be an energy source that can scale generation on demand. Until we get fusion, your choices are nuclear, natural gas, coal, oil, or hydropower.
- spacefight 12y agoThat might be correct for the world and the US, but as said in other threads, e.g Germany has around 30% of reneweable energery right now, that is more than "a couple percentage points". Some other countries have even more. Hydro I am also fine with - of course only if pumped with net plus energy of wind and solar and not with cheap nuclear power at night.