Conversation

Notices

1. Flick 🇬🇧 (flick@spinster.xyz)'s status on Thursday, 11-May-2023 19:22:04 JST Flick 🇬🇧

   https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/10/wind-solar-renewables-pointless-waste/

   Wind and solar need to be backed up, close to 100 per cent, by some other means of power generation. If that backup is provided by open-cycle gas or worse, coal, net zero will never be achieved: nor anything very close to it.

   There is one technology that can provide a cheap and reliable supply of low-emissions electricity: nuclear power. Interest in nuclear power is increasing as more and more people realise that it is safe and reliable. If regulators and the public could be persuaded that modern stations are inherently safe and that low levels of nuclear radiation are not dangerous, nuclear power could provide all the low cost, low emissions electricity the world needs for hundreds or thousands of years.

   But if we had 100 per cent nuclear backup for solar and wind, we wouldn’t need the wind and solar plants at all.

   https://archive.is/hPjcr

   • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: (thatguyoverthere@shitposter.club)'s status on Thursday, 11-May-2023 19:22:04 JST Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:

     in reply to
     @Flick there are other methods of generating and storing electricity but they don't scale well for mass produced electricity.
   • Flick 🇬🇧 (flick@spinster.xyz)'s status on Thursday, 11-May-2023 19:59:31 JST Flick 🇬🇧

     in reply to

     • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:

     @thatguyoverthere Yeah, he discusses them earlier in the article but, as you say, they don’t scale and/or are prohibitively expensive in money and resources.

     Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: likes this.
   • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: (thatguyoverthere@shitposter.club)'s status on Thursday, 11-May-2023 19:59:31 JST Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:

     in reply to
     @Flick that's the question though. How much do we need scalability if we focus on simplicity. I feel like everyone making decisions looks "solving energy" as a mostly global problem instead of something that might actually be more appropriately solved at the regional or even more local level. The result is that any technology that can't generate megawatts of energy is looked at as not viable.
   • Flick 🇬🇧 (flick@spinster.xyz)'s status on Thursday, 11-May-2023 20:16:22 JST Flick 🇬🇧

     in reply to

     • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:

     @thatguyoverthere I can’t honestly see the storage options being viable for more than, say, a village or maybe town level (see: Eigg), and where does that leave heavy industry? You can’t only make steel when it’s sunny.

     Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: likes this.
   • Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: (thatguyoverthere@shitposter.club)'s status on Thursday, 11-May-2023 20:16:22 JST Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:

     in reply to
     @Flick I don't think combustion needs to disappear from our energy sources. I just think scaling out instead of up is often a good way to solve scalability problems. I agree you can't reasonably store enough energy to power a whole city or anything, but you can generate electricity closer to the source. In Scotland they've built a bridge that uses vibration energy from motor and foot traffic to power the bridges electrical needs (lights). This kind of thing can be used anywhere the wind blows too without having giant windmills that kill wild life and ruin the skyline.
     
     http://www.eng.cam.ac.uk/news/new-vibration-energy-harvester-powers-forth-road-bridge
     
     As far as higher energy needs like industrial applications, they could build methane collectors or make biodiesel from local sources. The cool thing is you can convert existing ICE engines to run on these fuels without having to redeploy anywhere near as much infrastructure.