Re:Filling Nuclear Power's $5T Hole Is Beyond the Banks
by ben_w on Monday March 25, 2024 @02:47PM
(#39819908)
> Not a single solar cell today has been produced (including extraction of the material, transport, everything) fully with renewable energy.
Irrelevant, and also probably false on a technicality.
All those things can be powered by renewables, each sub-component demonstrated, the question is cost and what scale at which they have been built so far.
> We love to speak about "potential" and extrapolate given current numbers. But the fact is that we have never done anything like that at scale.
Only if you ignore all the things which form the very industrial base we want to update.
> And when you start looking at what would need to change to run fully on electricity... you realize it won't fully replace fossil fuels. Not even remotely.
If that were true, we all die miserably (in the next 40 or so years as the things driving the last century of fossil fuel use imply an exponential growth pattern) while being painfully stupid thanks to the fact CO2 in the air impedes human cognitive capacity.
(And nuclear won't help because your claim was "electricity" not "renewables").
Fortunately, roughly half of our total (20 TW) final energy consumption is "make things hot", which is very easy to electrify — given the way I use words, I think this by itself would be enough to disprove your "not even remotely" all by itself.
A further 3 TW is transport, of which 0.3 TW is spent on each of aviation (short-haul flights can be electrified, only longer distance ones are currently hard), and marine fuels. The rest is all stuff which can easily take batteries or hydrogen.
There's some overlap here with the 2 TW of electricity, but that means I've shown somewhere between 70% and 80% the energy use problems are easy.
What's harder is that I just said "energy" not "carbon", because some of what we do releases CO2 or other greenhouse gases without being related to energy use. Fortunately there are plenty of people working on solutions to the problems with cement, cattle, and metal oxide reduction — but they're not a correct part of the framing for energy specifically, even though they're totally relevant for the environment as a whole. Likewise the use of hydrocarbons as chemical feedstocks for plastic: very important when we care about running out of oil, not a big issue when we care about CO2 emissions.
Irrelevant, and also probably false on a technicality.
All those things can be powered by renewables, each sub-component demonstrated, the question is cost and what scale at which they have been built so far.
> We love to speak about "potential" and extrapolate given current numbers. But the fact is that we have never done anything like that at scale.
Only if you ignore all the things which form the very industrial base we want to update.
> And when you start looking at what would need to change to run fully on electricity... you realize it won't fully replace fossil fuels. Not even remotely.
If that were true, we all die miserably (in the next 40 or so years as the things driving the last century of fossil fuel use imply an exponential growth pattern) while being painfully stupid thanks to the fact CO2 in the air impedes human cognitive capacity.
(And nuclear won't help because your claim was "electricity" not "renewables").
Fortunately, roughly half of our total (20 TW) final energy consumption is "make things hot", which is very easy to electrify — given the way I use words, I think this by itself would be enough to disprove your "not even remotely" all by itself.
A further 3 TW is transport, of which 0.3 TW is spent on each of aviation (short-haul flights can be electrified, only longer distance ones are currently hard), and marine fuels. The rest is all stuff which can easily take batteries or hydrogen.
There's some overlap here with the 2 TW of electricity, but that means I've shown somewhere between 70% and 80% the energy use problems are easy.
What's harder is that I just said "energy" not "carbon", because some of what we do releases CO2 or other greenhouse gases without being related to energy use. Fortunately there are plenty of people working on solutions to the problems with cement, cattle, and metal oxide reduction — but they're not a correct part of the framing for energy specifically, even though they're totally relevant for the environment as a whole. Likewise the use of hydrocarbons as chemical feedstocks for plastic: very important when we care about running out of oil, not a big issue when we care about CO2 emissions.