Re:World Appears on Track to Triple Renewable Power by 2030
by vlovich123 on Wednesday November 29, 2023 @12:36PM
(#38462361)
Really not sure what your argument about China is. The vast majority of their energy production remains oil & coal. This follows from previous analysis that a focus on renewables means that your dependency on oil & coal remains. It’s telling that France is one of the few countries to go all in on nuclear & remains one of the few countries that has reliable year round carbon-free power generation (& a surplus that it exports to other countries). Germany went away from nuclear in favor of renewables & their reliance on fossil fuels went up.
If solar and wind were truly more scalable, they’d be significantly reducing our dependence on fossil fuels & yet they’re still not to this day. They offset some demand but demand grows faster than our ability to actually take away from fossil fuels.
Re:World Appears on Track to Triple Renewable Power by 2030
by ZeroGravitas on Thursday November 30, 2023 @04:34AM
(#38471520)
China has had the most dramatic rollout of nuclear. Less nimby and regulations. It could be considered a best case scenario:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-electricity-nuclear...
And it pales beside the accelerating output of solar and wind:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-of-electricity-prod...
Which is the main reason why China, surprisingly, is on track to have peak CO2 emissions this year, 7 years ahead of their schedule:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-emissions-set-to...
It's a very dramatic demonstration of how your entire thesis is wrong. You should look into it.
Your data on safety a) contradicts your claim in parts, b) is a decade out of date, c) ignores value for money
In reality, Solar is safer, cheaper and more scalable. Wind is safer, cheaper and more scalable. The two combined are even safer, cheaper and more scalable. Adding batteries makes them yet safer, cheaper and more scalable again.
This isn't speculation, look at China's rollout of nuclear, solar and wind.
At best, you can credibly argue that once 80% of electricity is renewable and we've electrified most heating, land transport and industry ... that nuclear, in some regions, might be a lower cost way to cover the last 10% or so.
But that's the nuclear-bull, renewable-bear scenario. If renewables over perform expectations, like they repeatedly have done, or nuclear doesn't pull out of its multi-decade slump, then there's very little room for it.