[Manuel_D]

Sequestration is an even bigger moonshot than storage. Most of the "carbon offsets" are in the form of payment in exchange for other countries to agree not to cut down forests. It isn't actually removing carbon from the atmosphere.

Actually removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is the stuff of scientists and PR moves. Nobody has a serious plan to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere at relevant scales. The only example I can find would capture only 900 tons of CO2 per year.

We'd need to build 4 nuclear plants for each one that exists in the US to have a 100% nuclear electrical grid. It's something that we've done before, we would reach this goal early if we built plants at the same place we did in the 1960s and 1970s. This doesn't rely on a moonshot succeeding.

Renewables rely on a storage breakthrough or a sequestration breakthrough (but if we have the latter we could just keep using fossil fuels anyway). Relying on any kind of breakthrough yielding a 1,000x improvement is very reckless. You can insist until your lips turn blue that we just need to some type of electrolysis invention of another breakthrough of thermal storage and it's surely right around the corner. But until storage or sequestration is on the market, there's no real plan just hope that some breakthrough will happen.

1. https://www.climatecentral.org/news/first-commercial-co2-cap...

[ncmncm]

It would take until well after 2050 to build those, and they would cost many, many times as much as renewables + storage, and produce zero kWh in the meantime. Just the money spent on coal, in the meantime, not counting nuke construction, would be more than the cost of building out enough renewables.

No "breakthroughs" are needed for storage. Everything works already. All that is unknown is which will end up cheapest.

But you already knew all of this.

[Manuel_D]

> It would take until well after 2050 to build those, and they would cost many, many times as much as renewables + storage, and produce zero kWh in the meantime.

Again, no, if nuclear power plant construction was carried out at the same rate as it was in the 1960s and 70s it'd be completed on time. You might be doubtful that we'd be able to manage that pace of construction in the 21st century, but at least there's precedence for that pace of construction actually being achieved.

> Just the money spent on coal, in the meantime, not counting nuke construction, would be more than the cost of building out enough renewables.

That's a very bold, source-less, claim you're making. Unfortunately the numbers don't even remotely add up. At a total of 535 million tons, and 36.14 dollars per ton for electric power consumption, we're looking at only $20 billion dollars of coal sales [1]. And that's generously assuming that all coal production went to electricity. If you're including power plant construction, that figure doesn't change much [2]. It's so small it's hard to see on the graph, but it appears to be below $25 billion dollars [3].

> No "breakthroughs" are needed for storage. Everything works already. All that is unknown is which will end up cheapest.

Right. We know something will make storage incredibly cheap. We don't know what kind of storage it will be. We don't have examples of it being delivered at that cost. But we just know it in our heart that something will save us and make intermittency a non-issue.

This is called "hope" and it's not a plan. The plan is to keep burning natural gas while wind and solar aren't producing, and keep our fingers crossed that our miraculous something will come about.

1. https://www.eia.gov/coal/annual/

2. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=45076

3. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/images/2020.09.10/chart2.s...

[ncmncm]

You may continue posting falsehoods, and I will continue pointing them out.

We don't need "something" to make storage cheap. Storage is cheap, and is getting cheaper.

Again, we are not building storage out yet because we don't have enough renewables to charge it from yet. Instead, we are right now building out factories to make it. E.g., the factories to make iron-air batteries, $20/kWh, are under construction right now. Ammonia synthesis plants are under construction right now. Tankage for ammonia is dirt cheap. No breakthroughs needed, just build-out.

When we do get to building out storage itself, it will be cheaper than it already is.

[seanhunter]

Rather than stating that their (sourced) claims are false, perhaps you could post some sources for your claims instead? For example, it would be great to see references for the cost of storage and why storage isn't being built yet.

[ncmncm]

It is easy to lie by mis-citing sources. Read what the sources say, not what he says.

[seanhunter]

It's easy to throw around accusations that other people are lieing, but it seems counterproductive to having healthy debate on here.

[tomp]

It would also be amazing if you posted any sources, or examples.

All we know is that France has cheap electricity (nuclear) and Germany majestically fucked up by shutting down nuclear, wanting to build renewables, and in turn ended up addicted to Russian carbon drugs.

[ncmncm]

That is a favorite trope of nuke boosters, but is false. Everyone repeating it knows this:

Germany was always dependent on fossil fuels. They have been adding wind turbines at a breakneck pace, getting incrementally less dependent. Fixing those ramshackle old contraptions would have cost much more per unit power out. They have already built out more wind generating capacity (averaged) than the reactors shut down produced. Germans, anyway, know this.

France is not building new nukes, nor even patching up old ones, because it is extremely expensive, and not getting any cheaper.

When people have to lie to try to make nukes look good, what are they really telling us?

[mlyle]

> France is not building new nukes, nor even patching up old ones, because it is extremely expensive, and not getting any cheaper.

False! https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20220210-announcing-new-r...