You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
-23 points

Aaaw, someone doesn’t like the tone used? Well that’s unfortunate. How about you start with leaving dem bad faith arguments?

Renewables will not cover your usage. Period. You will need something to cover what renewables won’t be able to deliver. Your options are limited. Nuclear is the only sustainable option for many places. Sure you got hydro (ecological disasters) or geothermal in some places, but most do not have those options.

It’s not an XOR problem.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Renewables will not cover your usage.

False. Multiple countries are already able to run on 100% renewables for prolonged periods of time. The bigger issue is what to do with excess power. Battery solutions can cover moments where renewables produce a bit less power.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Really hope green hydrogen kicks off. Could begin society’s efuel saga

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Sorry to report, hydrogen is also hopeless. It’s cool tech, but making it work in practice is hopeless because it diffuses straight through every container you try and keep it in, and achieving reasonable energy densities requires cryogenic storage.

Also, developments have been stalling out relative to electrical solutions because of this and because of the heavy investment in electrics.

I can only see it really working in practice in niche applications where you will be close to cryogenic facilities.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

100% renew

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_renewable_electricity_production

All the countries that manage 100% renewable power use high levels of hydropower. Which is not an option for many countries and has it’s own ecological problems associated with it.

Also, these 100% renewable countries have very little electricity requirements.

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-in-the-us-generation-capacity-and-sales.php

The United States produces at least produces four million Gigawatt hours of electricity per year. Compare that to some of these “100% renewable” countries.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Sure, most countries that already made it use hydro. But Denmark is already up tp 80% without hydro, and the UK and Germany are already nearly halfway there without any meaningful hydro. And there’s still so much solar and wind that can still be installed. They’re nowhere near their maximum production capacity yet.

100% from renewables is clearly feasible and achievable. Of course it takes time and investments, but nuclear energy will takre more time and investments to get going again.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

Oh noes, facts. The bane of all renewables evangelicals…

Just wait till you have to tell them they’re looking at irrelevant data. Not only are they using specific usecases that are not applicable to a large majority of countries, but they’re also using data that doesn’t support the long term fossil fuel goals.

Just wait till you tell them how much the electricity requirements will skyrocket once we’re transitioning to EV, dropping fossil fuel heating, cooking, cargo trucks switch to EV, etc etc.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-11 points

In the summer. In ideal conditions. Lets talk again once you’ve tried 12 continuous months in the heavily populated northern hemisphere. 😉

permalink
report
parent
reply

We’re nowhere near the potential capacity for energy production from renewables, and already we’re capable of doing 100% renewable power production.

Potential capacity is really not the issue.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Memes

!memes@lemmy.ml

Create post

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

Community stats

  • 9.1K

    Monthly active users

  • 6.5K

    Posts

  • 48K

    Comments