dunderpust t1_j82ars0 wrote

In 2021, renewable energy was almost 6% of world energy. What prevents it from being 16, 60, or 100? The main challenge now is electrification. Whether the electrons comes from PVs or nuclear plants is irrelevant, the only thing that matters is getting enough electricity. My personal opinion is we would should go full speed ahead on nuclear AND renewables, providing nuclear doesn't delay or stop renewables. As in, the sentiment "oh we don't have to build that wind farm, in 5 years time we will have a nuclear plant up and running" has to die. We will need so much electricity that both the nuclear plant and the wind farm combined will not be enough.

Also, I leave you with this graph why people are not expecting miracles from nuclear but supporting renewables:


You may try and convince yourself that exponential curve of wind and solar will break in a year or two, but you'll be more and more alone in that.


dunderpust t1_j7ypgrd wrote

Well, to be fair, fossil fuels is like the cheat code to the game. We had been burning stuff since time immemorial, made sense to burn this new oil and gas stuff we dug out of the ground as it burned really well, and why stop burning coal?

If anything, we are extraordinarily lucky we got solar and wind to work as well as we have in time. Reports coming out now are starting to indicate we have a good chance at limiting ourselves to 2c warming. If it all works out, I think our future descendants might view fossil fuels as the necessary evil that brought us into the green age... or so one can hope...


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.


dunderpust t1_j7yopig wrote

How much did we spend on non-renewable sources then? You are surely aware that 1. That money was the inefficient starting boost paid for by rich countries to push prices of renewables down so that the real race can start and 2. Energy usage has grown massively in the part of the world that cannot afford renewables - until now when prices has been pushed down? Rich countries emissions are decreasing as RE sources (and energy efficiency) is being added. Only by squinting and looking at a whole world average can one say that switching to renewables is not the way to cut emissions.

Either you're trying to say third world countries of some 5 to 6 billion people should replace their entire energy generation with nuclear power, in which case you are delusional, or you are saying that we should just give up on decarbonizing altogether, in which case you are a nutter or a monster.

Sorry, my tone is quite harsh I realize, but if all you have to say is "it can't be done" then you are just adding noise. We don't know if it can be done but we sure as fuck better give it a good try.


dunderpust t1_j7yo1i9 wrote

Some people thinks that this means we can just give up on renewables. As if in 20 years time, when we are reaching the crunch points, we will had have no technological development at all. Heck, if massive electrification happens and we get, say, 70% of our energy needs from low-carbon sources, we have already bought ourselves time for further technological development, and that's a huge boon already.