Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

LummoxJR t1_j7vxz4h wrote

Forget it, Jake. It's r/Futurology.

In all seriousness, though, renewables will never be able to fully satisfy demand, no matter how hard certain subs try to speak it into existence. They still belong in the conversation, and progress in better efficiency, stirafe, recycling, material sourcing, are all good to hear—but they won't ever completely replace non-renewables.

We seriously need a lot more innovation and actual development in the nuclear space too.


Viper_63 t1_j7wrj48 wrote

>Recent studies show that a global transition to 100% renewable energy across all sectors – power, heat, transport and desalination well before 2050 is feasible.[5][6][7][8] According to a review of the 181 peer-reviewed papers on 100% renewable energy that were published until 2018, "[t]he great majority of all publications highlights the technical feasibility and economic viability of 100% RE systems."[9] A review of 97 papers published since 2004 and focusing on islands concluded that across the studies 100% renewable energy was found to be "technically feasible and economically viable."[12] A 2022 review found that the main conclusion of most of the literature in the field is that 100% renewables is feasible worldwide at low cost.[13]

>Existing technologies, including storage, are capable of generating a secure energy supply at every hour throughout the year. The sustainable energy system is more efficient and cost effective than the existing system.[14] The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated in their 2011 report that there is little that limits integrating renewable technologies for satisfying the total global energy demand.

In all seriousness though, maybe it's time to accept expert oppinion on that matter.

Expert opinion being that nuclear is too slow, too costly and simply not scalable enough, while going 100% renewable is not only feasible but likely also cheaper.

By all means, keep regurgitating misinfo pushed by conservative think tanks to funnel even more subsidies into nuclear and fossil fuels.


dunderpust t1_j7yp3dv wrote

Whatever gets built that replaces coal and gas plants and doesn't let out carbon, we should invest massively in. Nuclear has its place, maybe, but there's a lot of countries that cannot and maybe should not be nuclear powered. Renewables are fast and cheap and it's not debatable that they can solve a big chunk of the problem. Until we see where the limit is, build the shit out of them as it has immediate positive effects.


alecs_stan t1_j8kf47e wrote

You are very resolute with words like "never" and "ever" missing the fact that we don't even need to replace non-renewables completely. If we reach a market share of let's say 50% we increase our window of action, allowing us more time to create better tech and find better solutions.


LummoxJR t1_j8kxc2u wrote

That's what I mean, though. Renewables belong in the conversation as part of the solution; they'll never be the entire solution. Not till we develop the tech to build a Dyson swarm, anyway.