Re:100% renewables doesn’t equal zero-carbon energy, and the...
by benj111 on Sunday May 26, 2019 @03:57PM
(#20017077)
"Not if we price in carbon emissions"
All those things can be carbon neutral, except waste to energy.
Obviously though yes, those places with no wind, sun or other resources. Nuclear will have a place.
Re:100% renewables doesn’t equal zero-carbon energy, and the...
by godelski on Sunday May 26, 2019 @07:03PM
(#20018125)
> Obviously though yes, those places with no wind, sun or other resources. Nuclear will have a place.
And the unfortunate part is that those places hold a fair amount of the world's population. We're not asking for nuclear in places that are sunny and windy. We don't need it there. We're asking for it in places that aren't.
> Are you saying we don't have the materials to do it?
Yes. At least without substantially expanding mining operations.
> Or we don't have the factory capacity for it?
We're NOWHERE near that kind of production level.
> The biggest flaw with this model is what happens on cloudy, still weeks? I guess some kind of waste to energy, wood, and bio gas, hydrogen power station would be less expensive than a nuclear reactor.
Not if we price in carbon emissions.
I also have to mention that there are plenty of places that people live where it is almost always cloudy and almost never windy (at the same time). I will keep saying this: we need diversified energy portfolios. The key though, is we don't want any of those sources producing emissions, or to at least minimize them as much as possible (we're playing a negative sum game here)