The actual data on renewables is impressive, but not nearly impressive enough to stop climate change…as.anyone can see who is paying attention to the emissions data.
Renewables still greatly depend on fossil fuels as a backup power and thermal power source, which is why fossil fuel companies are promoting renewables-only to the masses.
It ensures society remains dependent on fossil fuels for the next decades, albeit at a lower intensity. Which works out very well for them, since they already passed peak production and just want to sell the remaining stock as long as possible for the highest price.
Once we crank up a few hundred nuclear reactors to serve as the backup for renewables and as a thermal energy source for producing synthetic hydrocarbons, then fossil fuels will become obsolete.
Until then, we’re going to be partly dependent on fossil fuels and pay a hefty price for them.
Fossil fuel companies are not promoting renewables only. I’ve only seen objective reports from within the electricity industry promoting this - eg the UK’s Nation Grid recently did a Future Energy Scenarios study that determined renewables was the fastest way for the country to reach net zero.
Building a few hundred nuclear reactors takes a long time. Meanwhile, fossil fuels will continue to dominate our use. This is what fossil fuel companies want, to delay our transition away from them. Renewables give us the opportunity to wean off fossil fuels much more quickly. We’ll use a lot more fuel waiting for nuclear than we will backing up renewables.
We need nuclear, as part of a complete energy portfolio. However, renewables are available now, they’re quick, cheap, proven and profitable. If we build an excess of renewables, we can account for nearly all of the times where the wind isn’t blowing or the sun isn’t shining. Then, once we’ve weaned off fossil fuels, we can fill out our portfolio with nuclear. By the time the nuclear plants are built, our demand will have grown and that excess in renewables probably won’t be an excess anymore.
Renewables are highly volatile and storage technology isn’t there yet for most large grids. Right now that stability must come from coal, LNG, or nuclear, with some exceptions like geothermal. Pick your poison. China is building 5-10 giant new coal plants per year to satisfy this demand, despite being one of the cheapest places in the world to manufacture solar panels and turbines. If we care about the environment, we’ll choose nuclear. Germany’s “green” party has successfully lobbied to effectively end nuclear support in the country, and now they have to significantly increase coal and lignite consumption following the Russian LNG embargo.
I don’t understand why nuclear has to be a dirty word. Modern reactors are clean and safe. Far better for the environment than coal and LNG.
It’s not either/or, it’s in conjunction with, and it just so happens that renewable-only isn’t sufficient and has failed to scale enough to combat climate change.
While here in Australia we already have a state running on 100% renewables, any plan for nuclear takes too long and costs too much. Read up. The barriers for compact reactors are large and expensive before nuclear is feasible and they still haven’t worked out that pesky waste issue. Investing in nuclear once renewables are established is fine. Expecting nuclear to bear the load while they are yet to be built is just fantasy. Renewables are here and are cheaper. They are literally the answer already here.
Tasmania has some great geography for hydro power, generating 90% of their power. Most places in the world don’t have such geography. Pointing to goldilocks locations as though they’re replicable everywhere isn’t well informed. Further, while hydro is less volatile than wind and solar, it still requires a reliable grid fallback during droughts. Tasmania has this with the Basslink. Without it, they would also require quick-fire coal and LNG plants on standby. Or, more likely, running permanently as the spool-up cost is very high.
No one is claiming nuclear is cheap and instant. We’re arguing that neglecting nuclear keeps coal and LNG consumption unnecessarily high.
Appreciate you did research, however Tasmania isn’t SA. And Bass link runs both ways. It’s a grid link, not a power generator.
But if you th8nknthats goldilocks, let’s look at France. It’s the most successful and pervasive nuclear power. And they are currently moving away from nuclear. Ouch.
But if you th8nknthats goldilocks, let’s look at France. It’s the most successful and pervasive nuclear power. And they are currently moving away from nuclear. Ouch.
Unfortunate that they don’t have the workers to maintain them, the failure to maintain existing reactors has resulted in blackouts as urgent repairs occur, and the only way to make nuclear seem to work is to nationalise the debt and make everyone pay heavy taxes to cover up the losses. But hey, eight new reactors planned, that’s not a goldilocks!
Albania, Iceland, and Paraguay all hit 100% renewable also.
And the clue is in urgent repair. It is incompetence that lead to increased cost, and fines should pay for the consequences of the incompetence, not raising taxes.
… No, please read up on the topic. It wasn’t possible to make profit. The cost of supporting and maintaining the reactors was too much. Without exorbitant electricity prices, there’s no profits. So the govt is taking on the debt and will tax to service the debt. Nuclear doesn’t add up financially. You need a entire mature industry to service the reactors. Without that, the operating costs get excessive. Nuclear isn’t cheap. It only works when the govt subsidises. That equals higher taxes.
I don’t understand what you’re arguing. There has been no maintenance failure. They delayed maintenance during the recent energy crisis, but the reactors remain perfectly safe. Do you think pointing out the fact that reactors require maintenance is an argument against nuclear? Do you have any idea how much maintenance is required for wind and solar?
Albania, Iceland, and Paraguay rely on primarily hydro power. The same as Tasmania. You appear to be using the same argument as above, refusing to acknowledge that most countries are unable to utilise hydro power generation. Give me the case for how every other country in the world is able to rely on hydro. Show me your working. Provide some citations.
Nah boy, you claimed nuclear is the answer, yet no one runs 100% nuclear. You have several examples of renewables already delivering 100%. And none of them are 100% hydro. RENEWABLES, not just hydro, are the clear and unmistakeable winner for energy provision. Fucking around with nuclear has been proven to be too expensive and not maintainable by the best example you have, France.
And no one has resolved the nuclear waste issue which makes nuclear the worst possible environmental choice for energy. I’m not gong to bother to cite anything so self evident. You want to claim otherwise, you shown us your citations.
Nuclear is a dirty word because we have 80 years of demonstrating its disastrously destructive tendencies, including in North America. Trinity tests irradiated and killed entire towns. Three Mile Island is like the 3rd largest nuclear disaster of all time. Fukushima/Chernobyl haven’t quelled anyone’s fears of meltdowns.
Now, is a meltdown ever likely to happen? No, of course not. But that doesn’t mean it can’t. The mining and processing of uranium/thorium is insanely bad for the environement, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it was close to coal carbon emissions.
We have thousands of miles of coastline, thousands of miles of rivers, and many large lakes in Canada. Why couldn’t we have a robust hydro network?
That’s a convenient sound bite that really ignores actual data on renewables.
The actual data on renewables is impressive, but not nearly impressive enough to stop climate change…as.anyone can see who is paying attention to the emissions data.
Renewables still greatly depend on fossil fuels as a backup power and thermal power source, which is why fossil fuel companies are promoting renewables-only to the masses.
It ensures society remains dependent on fossil fuels for the next decades, albeit at a lower intensity. Which works out very well for them, since they already passed peak production and just want to sell the remaining stock as long as possible for the highest price.
Once we crank up a few hundred nuclear reactors to serve as the backup for renewables and as a thermal energy source for producing synthetic hydrocarbons, then fossil fuels will become obsolete.
Until then, we’re going to be partly dependent on fossil fuels and pay a hefty price for them.
Fossil fuel companies are not promoting renewables only. I’ve only seen objective reports from within the electricity industry promoting this - eg the UK’s Nation Grid recently did a Future Energy Scenarios study that determined renewables was the fastest way for the country to reach net zero.
Building a few hundred nuclear reactors takes a long time. Meanwhile, fossil fuels will continue to dominate our use. This is what fossil fuel companies want, to delay our transition away from them. Renewables give us the opportunity to wean off fossil fuels much more quickly. We’ll use a lot more fuel waiting for nuclear than we will backing up renewables.
We need nuclear, as part of a complete energy portfolio. However, renewables are available now, they’re quick, cheap, proven and profitable. If we build an excess of renewables, we can account for nearly all of the times where the wind isn’t blowing or the sun isn’t shining. Then, once we’ve weaned off fossil fuels, we can fill out our portfolio with nuclear. By the time the nuclear plants are built, our demand will have grown and that excess in renewables probably won’t be an excess anymore.
Renewables are highly volatile and storage technology isn’t there yet for most large grids. Right now that stability must come from coal, LNG, or nuclear, with some exceptions like geothermal. Pick your poison. China is building 5-10 giant new coal plants per year to satisfy this demand, despite being one of the cheapest places in the world to manufacture solar panels and turbines. If we care about the environment, we’ll choose nuclear. Germany’s “green” party has successfully lobbied to effectively end nuclear support in the country, and now they have to significantly increase coal and lignite consumption following the Russian LNG embargo.
I don’t understand why nuclear has to be a dirty word. Modern reactors are clean and safe. Far better for the environment than coal and LNG.
This stupid renewables vs nuclear debate is engineered by the fossil fuel bastards. We need both. It’s not a choice. Both.
I fully agree.
Or, and hear me out, we could just go with renewables.
It’s not either/or, it’s in conjunction with, and it just so happens that renewable-only isn’t sufficient and has failed to scale enough to combat climate change.
While here in Australia we already have a state running on 100% renewables, any plan for nuclear takes too long and costs too much. Read up. The barriers for compact reactors are large and expensive before nuclear is feasible and they still haven’t worked out that pesky waste issue. Investing in nuclear once renewables are established is fine. Expecting nuclear to bear the load while they are yet to be built is just fantasy. Renewables are here and are cheaper. They are literally the answer already here.
Tasmania has some great geography for hydro power, generating 90% of their power. Most places in the world don’t have such geography. Pointing to goldilocks locations as though they’re replicable everywhere isn’t well informed. Further, while hydro is less volatile than wind and solar, it still requires a reliable grid fallback during droughts. Tasmania has this with the Basslink. Without it, they would also require quick-fire coal and LNG plants on standby. Or, more likely, running permanently as the spool-up cost is very high.
No one is claiming nuclear is cheap and instant. We’re arguing that neglecting nuclear keeps coal and LNG consumption unnecessarily high.
I’m arguing that aside from the fission reaction, Nuclear is just as dirty as coal.
Appreciate you did research, however Tasmania isn’t SA. And Bass link runs both ways. It’s a grid link, not a power generator.
But if you th8nknthats goldilocks, let’s look at France. It’s the most successful and pervasive nuclear power. And they are currently moving away from nuclear. Ouch.
“In February 2022 France announced plans to build six new reactors and to consider building a further eight.”
Unfortunate that they don’t have the workers to maintain them, the failure to maintain existing reactors has resulted in blackouts as urgent repairs occur, and the only way to make nuclear seem to work is to nationalise the debt and make everyone pay heavy taxes to cover up the losses. But hey, eight new reactors planned, that’s not a goldilocks!
Albania, Iceland, and Paraguay all hit 100% renewable also.
And the clue is in urgent repair. It is incompetence that lead to increased cost, and fines should pay for the consequences of the incompetence, not raising taxes.
… No, please read up on the topic. It wasn’t possible to make profit. The cost of supporting and maintaining the reactors was too much. Without exorbitant electricity prices, there’s no profits. So the govt is taking on the debt and will tax to service the debt. Nuclear doesn’t add up financially. You need a entire mature industry to service the reactors. Without that, the operating costs get excessive. Nuclear isn’t cheap. It only works when the govt subsidises. That equals higher taxes.
I don’t understand what you’re arguing. There has been no maintenance failure. They delayed maintenance during the recent energy crisis, but the reactors remain perfectly safe. Do you think pointing out the fact that reactors require maintenance is an argument against nuclear? Do you have any idea how much maintenance is required for wind and solar?
Albania, Iceland, and Paraguay rely on primarily hydro power. The same as Tasmania. You appear to be using the same argument as above, refusing to acknowledge that most countries are unable to utilise hydro power generation. Give me the case for how every other country in the world is able to rely on hydro. Show me your working. Provide some citations.
Nah boy, you claimed nuclear is the answer, yet no one runs 100% nuclear. You have several examples of renewables already delivering 100%. And none of them are 100% hydro. RENEWABLES, not just hydro, are the clear and unmistakeable winner for energy provision. Fucking around with nuclear has been proven to be too expensive and not maintainable by the best example you have, France.
And no one has resolved the nuclear waste issue which makes nuclear the worst possible environmental choice for energy. I’m not gong to bother to cite anything so self evident. You want to claim otherwise, you shown us your citations.
Nuclear is a dirty word because we have 80 years of demonstrating its disastrously destructive tendencies, including in North America. Trinity tests irradiated and killed entire towns. Three Mile Island is like the 3rd largest nuclear disaster of all time. Fukushima/Chernobyl haven’t quelled anyone’s fears of meltdowns.
Now, is a meltdown ever likely to happen? No, of course not. But that doesn’t mean it can’t. The mining and processing of uranium/thorium is insanely bad for the environement, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it was close to coal carbon emissions.
We have thousands of miles of coastline, thousands of miles of rivers, and many large lakes in Canada. Why couldn’t we have a robust hydro network?