[jboog]

Why leave out the cost of fossil fuel power sources throughout history?

And deaths caused by fossil fuel emissions which is in the tens of thousands per year.

Fukushima and Chernobyl combined are a tiny fraction of FF emissions/deaths/costs.

[pfdietz]

We leave that out because it's irrelevant to whether nuclear or renewables should be used to replace fossil fuels.

[sir_bearington]

It is highly relevant, because renewables are not presently capable of replacing fossil fuels. And they won't be until massive energy storage systems, literally thousands of times better than what we have now, is developed. California, Hawaii, and other places are already hitting saturated electricity markets during the daytime. Companies aren't starting to install storage, as renewable evangelists promised.

[dragonwriter]

> Companies aren't starting to install storage, as renewable evangelists promised.

Yes, they are, at least in California which has an aggressive storage policy: https://blog.ucsusa.org/guest-commentary/five-facts-about-en...

[sir_bearington]

Th fact that California only has 1.5 GWh of storage is precisely the reason why wind and solar cannot form the primary source of energy. Who cares if the state met it's storage goals if the storage goals were tiny?

[dragonwriter]

That's not 1.5GWh energy stored, it's 1.5GW output from storage systems (output is the key metric because the storage systems aren't very rapid discharge, and the key factor in adequacy isn't how much energy is stored but how much power can be delivered from storage when other systems aren't delivering. And it's not just about meeting current targets but the rapid pace of new storage coming online.

[sir_bearington]

> That's not 1.5GWh energy stored, it's 1.5GW output from storage systems

So how much is actually stored? 1.5GW for 10 minutes? 15 minutes? Watts isn't a unit of storage, watts per a unit of time is a unit of storage.

[jboog]

Absolutely none of this changes the undeniable fact that "storage" is incapable of meeting the demands of baseload power generation currently provided by Nuclear and fossil fuels.

We aren't anywhere close and won't be for many years which is why it's so absolutely ridiculous how green activists implicitly endorse using coal, natural gas and other fossil fuels which kill tens of thousands of people every year and are cooking the planet, when we have nuclear, which kills no one, and does not contribute substantively to climate change.

It's almost like the activists care more about posturing and magical thinking than they do "saving the planet"...

[jboog]

it is literally impossible for renewables to replace fossil fuels given current technology and anything on the horizon for at least the next decade, probably much longer.

So that leaves...Nuclear.

So again, why are you fear-mongering about how "dangerous" nuclear is when it's a tiny tiny fraction of the real danger of fossil fuels?

I thought climate change was like an urgent crisis or something....?

[Stupulous]

I think the question is whether renewables should replace nuclear or fossil fuels first. The top level comment isn't talking about replacing fossil fuels with nuclear.

[jboog]

Renewables CANNOT replace nuclear OR fossil fuels. It's literally impossible based on current or any near-term technology.

We are being told on the one hand that climate change is an existential threat to tens (hundreds?) of millions of people. Oh but actually we can just refuse to decarbonize our energy production because maybe someday 10, 20, 50 or 100 years from now there's a true "green" renewable energy I guess.

[Stupulous]

About 1/5th of US energy usage is renewable. That means we can shutdown 1/5th of nonrenewable plants or shutdown all nonrenewables 1/5th of the time, real answer somewhere in between. The top level post recommends doing this only to carbon sources and leaving nuclear alone.

There are good arguments for and against pivoting to nuclear right now. But there is an (I think) unquestionable position presented here that we shouldn't be pivoting away from nuclear and shutting down plants.

[pfdietz]

> Renewables CANNOT replace nuclear OR fossil fuels. It's literally impossible based on current or any near-term technology.

Nonsense. It's clear they can, although it's more than just using Li-ion batteries.

[sir_bearington]

> although it's more than just using Li-ion batteries.

It'd probably be helpful to elaborate, rather than just insist that the above commenter is wrong and loosely suggest at other solutions.

Things like hydrogen storage, synthetic methane, and thermal storage remain in the prototyping phase. I think it's not correct to say that they can, seeing as there isn't even a commercial market for these technologies let alone one that we know will scale. By comparison countries have already powered >80% of their electricity with nuclear.

It's clear than nuclear power can completely replace fossil fuels. Renewables might be able to replace it, but that's a gamble based on assuming a new storage solution will work excellent. Not just better, but truly blows-everything-else-out-of-the-water phenomenal. When the stakes at play are stopping climate change, this is a very risky assumption to make.

[bob29]

https://energystorage.org/why-energy-storage/technologies/

These technologies exist today and are based on sound thermodynamic principles and existing industrial capability.

[jboog]

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

There is no way that renewable energy can replace baseload power generation of FF and natural gas given current technology.

All you have is magical thinking and science fiction.

[pfdietz]

No sir, YOU have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Note that you are not claiming that they could be competitive, but that they could not do it at all, regardless of price. This is clearly nonsense.