G-7 Pledges Put Coal on Notice, Could Boost Climate Aid (apnews.com) 118
Officials from the Group of Seven wealthy nations announced Friday that they will aim to largely end greenhouse gas emissions from their power sectors by 2035, making it highly unlikely that those countries will burn coal for electricity beyond that date. From a report: Ministers from the G-7 countries meeting in Berlin also announced a target to have a "highly decarbonized road sector by 2030," meaning that electric vehicles would dominate new car sales by the end of the decade. And in a move aimed at ending the recurring conflict between rich and poor nations during international climate talks, the G-7 recognized for the first time the need to provide developing countries with additional financial aid to cope with the loss and damage caused by global warming. The agreements, which will be put to leaders next month at the G-7 summit in Elmau, Germany, were largely welcomed by climate activists. "The 2035 target for power sector decarbonisation is a real breakthrough. In practice, this means countries need to phase out coal by 2030 at the latest," said Luca Bergamaschi, director of Rome-based campaign group ECCO.
need nuclear power to replace the coal! (Score:4)
need nuclear power to replace the coal!
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously not.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. You need something that can actually do the job in 13 years, not your fantasy solution that completely ignores the reality of every nuclear reactor we've *attempted* to build in the past 2 decades.
Re: (Score:2)
That is not how the world works. We need nuclear power plants started now because in 13 years we will have a fleet of nuclear power plants that are 13 years older with nothing to replace them.
It is a fantasy to think we can replace nuclear power with anything but new nuclear power. Maybe we can't complete a nuclear power plant in 13 years, but that doesn't mean we should not even try.
Those "attempted" nuclear power plants from the last 20 years are only failures if we learned nothing from the experience.
Re: (Score:2)
They are aiming for 2035. Current new nuclear plants in Europe as taking 25 years to come online. Even the initial estimates by the developers were 20 years. So that's 2042 at best, more likely 2047. Way too late to help with this.
It has to be something that can be built and supplying the grid in the next 13 years.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
What's actually going to happen is the purists who insist on 100% perfect and completely impractical solutions will allow energy prices and inflation to get out of hand. Then they are thrown out of the government by people who care more about putting food on the table than global warming, and finally the right wing extremists who replace them can delay any action by another decade or two.
Just look at the amount of environmental hand-wringing [calmatters.org] over extracting lithium from the highly polluted Salton Sea in Cal
This is stupid (Score:3, Interesting)
Likewise, it is LONG past time to restart building new nuke power plants. In particular, the SMRs are a great deal cheaper and safer than the large nuke power plants.
For the west, most nations have money saved up for nuke waste. That money should be used for NEW NUCLEAR power plants IFF it is a fast reactor that can take waste from a thermal plant, and burn it up to much lower levels. The idea of burying fuel that is only 2-3% used up, and will be around for 20-30K years is just insane.
And yes, the reserve for nuke waste, would be IDEAL for building new plants, but only if it really burns up the waste.
Re: (Score:2)
"G7 should work to push the UN to require that all nations no longer..."
So you want all sovereign nations to bend over and give up their sovereignty to the UN? That's a very dangerous proposition and one that flies in the face of freedom and democracy.
Re: (Score:2)
"G7 should work to push the UN to require that all nations no longer..."
So you want all sovereign nations to bend over and give up their sovereignty to the UN? That's a very dangerous proposition and one that flies in the face of freedom and democracy.
This is just pledging by people that don't really have any authority to enforce anything.
It's about as likely to work as those church groups that have teens pledge not to have sex until they are married.
Re: (Score:2)
That is what is called CIVIL SOCIETY.
Re: (Score:2)
So, yes, a coal plant can become a nat gas plant, but it must have LESS TOTAL EMISSIONS than the plant it replaces.
As good as the idea is, nations are already doing that with coal. Most modern coal plants being built on the site of decommissioned existing coal plants (after all the coal infrastructure is in place, not the gas infrastructure, it's not as easy as you think to convert between them) already produce less emissions and a fuckton less pollution than their 40 year old granddaddies.
Likewise, it is LONG past time to restart building new nuke power plants.
You're right, it's LONG past the time. So long to the point where nuclear cannot form any part of a solution in any 2035 plan. Give
Re: (Score:2)
It's already too late for new nuclear. If you start building to tomorrow it won't be ready by the 2035 deadline.
We need solutions that can come online in the next decade.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We have been over this before. The naval ones are insanely expensive. Not commercially viable.
They also use highly enriched fuel that can't be supplied to civilian reactors due to proliferation concerns.
There is also some question over their safety, given that the navy probably wouldn't admit any accidents that they could cover up.
Re: (Score:2)
And for some odd reason, you think that others should accept those. WRONG.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll gladly support that the day you agree to pay my petrol, gas, and electricity bills.
Re: (Score:2)
The G7 cannot shutdown their own coal burning plants
At least one has.
Re: (Score:2)
However, we need to change laws to require that reopening plants need to be CLEANER than what was closed.
As to the troll that you answered, well, he is a troll.
It's the same as leaded gasoline (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd love a citation for the statement "electrical demand in modernized Nations has been flat for ages."
Flat is an exaggeration, but not really inaccurate [iea.org].
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
First off, opening your argument by calling something idiotic isn't the best way to influence others opinions
It's a great way to point out that there are much better ways to do things and that this approach is... idiotic.
Most electric car owners charge their cars at night during off-peak times, meaning that kWh draw won't effect peaks on the grid.
You mean when solar panels can't produce electricity?
it is important not to think so one-dimensionally about solving this problem.
I already did. Why don't you have a go at it now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or just do this. Problem solved, it works in your current car, and we don't have to wait on something that won't work very well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Regarding the article, there are also sources that have been developed in the last 10 years and that work well that grow in the desert and can be watered with salt water as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Or just do this. Problem solved
No, because it doesn't scale sufficiently.
Re: (Score:2)
Rather than tying ourselves up in knots trying to work out ways to deal with dilute and intermittent energy from wind and solar perhaps we could instead seek reliable energy sources. Geothermal, hydro, and nuclear fission are reliable. Onshore wind is so cheap and easy that I expect we will happily deal with the issue of intermittent power by means of "storing" that energy with energy not extracted from geothermal and hydro.
Consumers of electricity should not have to deal with the intermittency problems o
Re: (Score:2)
Rather than tying ourselves up in knots trying to work out ways to deal with dilute and intermittent energy from wind and solar perhaps we could instead seek reliable energy sources. Geothermal, hydro, and nuclear fission are reliable. Onshore wind is so cheap and easy that I expect we will happily deal with the issue of intermittent power by means of "storing" that energy with energy not extracted from geothermal and hydro.
Consumers of electricity should not have to deal with the intermittency problems of utility scale solar power.
I don't think there is any reason why consumers of electricity, at least at the domestic level, will have any need to deal with much in the way of intermittency, especially where demand can be smoothed by relatively automatic systems, except where they wish to due to cost of building power generation systems (across multiple sources) that have no chance of intermittency. Already, countries are managing with high levels of wind generation in the mix without domestic demand management with modest amounts of t
Re: (Score:1)
I do see a value in nuclear power for 10-20% of the mix as an absolute baseline.
The USA and the world are already at 10% to 20% nuclear power, depending on if you look at electricity only or energy production generally.
By "baseline" are you seeing that as the ceiling or floor?
That must be the floor because 10% to 20% is where we are now. We will only go up from here. Once the political barriers start to fall there will be a positive feedback. Once experience in nuclear power construction builds there will be positive feedback on lowering costs and rising rates of new construction.
Th
Re: (Score:2)
I do see a value in nuclear power for 10-20% of the mix as an absolute baseline.
The USA and the world are already at 10% to 20% nuclear power, depending on if you look at electricity only or energy production generally.
Indeed. I don't expect it will change much as it will all that will be required to offset intermittency of other sources.
By "baseline" are you seeing that as the ceiling or floor?
Baseline power, not a baseline figure. 10-20% is what I would expect would be useful baseline for countries, varying by country depending on their overall power mix, ability to trade over the grid with others and decisions made by their governments on behalf and with involvement of the populace.
That must be the floor because 10% to 20% is where we are now. We will only go up from here.
The need for electrical power will increase, so there can be more nuclear installations alongsi
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming we don't regress into barbarism populations are going to continue to shrink anyway and demand for electricity will eventually start to drop anyway. One of the dirty little secrets of the power industries that electrical demand in modernized Nations has been flat for ages
You think it will remain flat as people replace their ICE cars with electric, their gas heat with heat pumps, and their gas stoves with induction?
Replacing fossil fuels with electricity is going to require a large increase in the amount of available electricity.
Too Much Hand Waving (Score:1)
... electric vehicles would dominate new car sales by the end of the decade
This is great and I'm all for it. BUT. There are too many unanswered questions and too much hand-waving at legitimate problems.
Gasoline powered vehicles aren't going anywhere because electric vehicles are too expensive.
I used to live in a large apartment complex. There's nowhere to put the 200+ chargers that would be needed to accommodate the people living there. A few million people live in a similar situation.
I used to live in a neighborhood where most of the houses have no driveway and every
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You go where you can fill it up in less than 5 minutes. Not go where you have to spend an hour. Electric cars are really only convenient for those that can let them charge over night where they live. Some people do value their time little enough that they are willing to put up with the inconvenience, but the vast majority of people are not BEV/alternative energy zealots.
Re: (Score:2)
It's possible for apartments to build chargers in their parking lots. Not to mention we don't need 100% coverage for it to have a significant impact on gasoline use (though whether that translates to CO2 emissions reduction depends on a lot more factors).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I used to live in a large apartment complex. There's nowhere to put the 200+ chargers that would be needed to accommodate the people living there.
You don't need to install "chargers" for people in this context. All you need is decent outlets, and actually even crap ones (15A@120V) will serve most people's needs if they recharge nightly. The dinky little charger that comes with the vehicle (usually, anyway — but make it their problem, not yours) is sufficient for overnight charging for typical users.
Re: (Score:2)
That nets people 24-30 miles worth of charge at best per night. Now throw in winter weather efficiency loss, people that have longer commutes, errands, etc, and that math does not work out over a week's time.
Re: (Score:2)
That nets people 24-30 miles worth of charge at best per night. Now throw in winter weather efficiency loss, people that have longer commutes, errands, etc, and that math does not work out over a week's time.
Ah 8 hour charge should get you around 14kWh. The bigger Teslas have 90kWh. So it's about 60 miles. It's not great, but is twice your estimate.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you assuming a constant 15 amps from an outlet rated for 15 amps? Do that and you will eventually trip the circuit breaker. That 15 amp outlet rating is a peak rating. When pulling current for many hours that 15 amp outlet should only supply something like 10 amps, maybe 12 or 13 amps, depending on how one does the math and who's safety derate tables are used.
There are rules on outlets for charging EVs, and they are not cheap to install. There must be a dedicated circuit breaker. There's going to h
Re: (Score:2)
and actually even crap ones (15A@120V) will serve most people's needs if they recharge nightly
O_o. Maybe if you only leave your house once a week.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe I'm different, but I'm not the type to sleep for 30 hours
In eight hours from a 15A, 120V outlet you can get 14kWh. A Tesla X has a 95kWh battery with 90kWh usable and has a range of 350 miles. Do the maths.
Re: (Score:2)
Electric vehicles are generally cheaper to produce than gas powered ones because they're mechanically simpler. They're more expensive currently because they're made in smaller numbers and because of their batteries. Battery cost is decreasing exponentially.
As for how to charge your electric car, just run an electric wire through the gasoline pipe that currently serves your parking spot.
Re: (Score:2)
Battery cost is decreasing exponentially.
Sure, that happens when electric vehicles are one percent of the total market and the batteries used in cars make up a fraction of the total demand for batteries. What happens to the price of the raw materials to make these batteries when the demand goes up by 100 times?
We will not continue to see battery costs decrease exponentially, at some point the costs run into the problem of just paying for the raw materials. Just consider how much more valuable a working gasoline car is compared to the scrap metal
Re: (Score:2)
This is one of those days I wish I had mod points, because I would drop some on you. All points are valid and align with what I've been looking at. If we forced a switch to electric tomorrow, we'd run out of raw materials quicker than we would oil. There is much more Iron in the world than Lithium.
The hydrocarbon fuel issue is fairly easy to solve, but it takes willpower.. For years we've been making diesel from algae, but nobody has tried scaling the process up. The algae sequesters the carbon from co2
Re: (Score:2)
For years we've been making diesel from algae, but nobody has tried scaling the process up.
Algae fuels are just solar power by another name. There's not enough power in sunlight to solve our energy problems.
People often forget that fixing global warming is more than just stopping the production of co2. We need to actively sequester it, and algae seems to be the solution.
People often forget that global warming is more than just not burning fossil fuels, that energy has to be replaced somehow. I'll see people mention hydrogen but hydrogen is not an energy source, it is an energy storage medium. Batteries and electric cars are not energy sources either, replacing gasoline cars with electric ones still means we need to make up for the energy we got from the ga
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, Nuclear is the best EROEI but if we're going to talk EROEI and power plants, look at what University of Kentucky is doing to sequester CO2 from coal plants using algae bioreactors. Really neat stuff.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
There's also a really good ted talk on floating algae rafts for treating wastewater from sewers and creating biofuels. If you want to skip ahead to 11:45, the speaker talks about how just using 1% of the SF bay, we could produce 20% of the fuel used by SF.
https://yout [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:2)
Algae bioreactors to sequester carbon are still processes power by sunlight. This limits how much CO2 that can be sequestered to the power of sunlight gathered, which will always be limited, and the efficiency of the algae to convert CO2 into some liquid or solid that we could handle. How efficient can this algae be? We already know that we can turn electricity into liquid hydrocarbon fuels, and that we can produce electricity from solar thermal or photovoltaic systems more efficiently than most any biol
Re: (Score:2)
It's funny how certain people claim we'll never run out of oil because previously uneconomic reserves become feasible over time. Yet for some of the most common minerals in the Earth's crust, "OMG no, we'll run out!!" Not to mention that we have to burn the oil, but can reuse the lithium.
Of course we will need a variety of energy sources. Certain people also love to set up this false dichotomy. I repl
Re: (Score:1)
It's funny that I point out that higher demand results in higher prices and that gets twisted into we are going to run out. Did I claim we will run out? No. I pointed out that the costs of making batteries cannot be lower than that of the raw materials in those same batteries.
Electric cars are not likely to ever be cheaper to produce than a gasoline car because there is more mass in an EV, and more energy involved in turning that mass of raw materials into an EV. But then calling them a gasoline car isn
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you've certainly convinced yourself. Don't worry, I'm sure you'll be able to buy gasoline for a long time to come. You'll probably have to get it at the hardware store in little cans like camp stove fuel though.
Although, you might want to consider that there's a lot less mass in a bicycle, so clearly automobiles of *any* kind are impractical. Guess we'll have to think of something else.
Re: (Score:1)
This is a public forum so I'm not necessarily trying to convince you of anything, I'm thinking of the audience of lurkers.
People are not likely to buy fuel for their vehicles in little steel cans at a hardware store because compressed natural gas cars are a thing, and large trucks running on batteries aren't practical. People might have to go a bit out of their way to fill up at a truck stop or airport but they are not going to buy vehicle fuel in cans at a hardware store.
There's two exit ramps on the elec
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just that electric vehicles are too expensive for the masses, it's that the raw materials to shift to only building electric cannot be extracted fast enough. Shifting all power generation to "green" will also require an enormous supply of batteries in order to keep the lights on despite the weather. That's even more competition for the limited supply of battery raw materials. A supply that's vastly hampered by the same environmentalists demanding its use.
These are proclamations of politicians th
Re: (Score:2)
I used to live in a large apartment complex. There's nowhere to put the 200+ chargers that would be needed to accommodate the people living there.
Next to the parking spaces for cars would seem to be a good option.
Where will you put chargers
On the street would be one answer, but that is actually more complex as they would cause issues with the general use of the street much more than your other scenario. So this one is a real issue.
and who will pay for them?
Everyone with a car, the way roads are paid for now in places like the UK, I would suspect.
The list goes on ... and nobody is even pretending to address anything.
In reality, a lot of thought and effort goes into this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
a) plan to to do all my charging at the supermarket, or
b) buy a gas powered car
Hmmm
No nukes, no fossil fuel, no power (Score:2)
While would be nice to generate a largess of cheap power the political climate and technology is against it.
The current administration is against nukes and fossil fuel and solar and wind have no hope of taking up the slack from fossil fuels and nukes.
Solar and wind also have environmental issues to contend with and electricity generated by these means is comparatively expensive.
So most of your electricity is produced by burning fossil fuels which just pushes the tailpipe upstate or nukes which no one has fi
Clean coal? (Score:2)
China ignored again... (Score:2)
FTFY (Score:2)
"G-7 recognized for the first time the need to provide developing countries with additional financial aid to cope with the loss and damage caused by global warming."
Translation:
G-7 recognized for the first time that developing countries aren't willing to go along with the damage that their economies will suffer from having to comply with world climate goals so they're giving them money to STFU and a promise to look the other way when they continue doing what they've always done."
Re: (Score:2)
That's a lovely nullifying prophecy there. Declare failure in advance and use it as an excuse to not start.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even if a prediction that says "The poor nations will not use any of that aid in a way that reduces conflict or emissions" turns out to be accurate, it doesn't follow that either of the following would be accurate:
G7 nations will use this as an excuse to do nothing internally
G7 nations decarbonizing their power sectors won't help, even if no one outside the G7 decarbonizes
Re: (Score:2)
Ministers from the G-7 countries meeting in Berlin also announced a target to have a "highly decarbonized road sector by 2030," meaning that electric vehicles would dominate new car sales by the end of the decade.
Meanwhile, sugar cane and some other sources of ethanol create a nearly closed loop carbon cycle. Brazil does it today and would likely be carbon negative if they didn't burn their leftover biomass. But hey, lets not get thought out solutions get in the way of something that is new so it must be better philosophy. For reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Have you seen how little energy we can get per land area of energy crops like sugar cane? I have, it's not good.
http://www.inference.org.uk/su... [inference.org.uk]
Energy crops compete for land, water, labor, and other scarce commodities with crops for food and clothing fiber. Burning food tor fuel is how so many civilizations ended in history. All that is left of them is some stone structures and trash that we dug up. We do that and some future civilization will be sifting through the dirt to find what was left behind by
Re: (Score:2)
We solved global warming, now stop scaring everyone's kids to death over it.
No we didn't. We're ignoring better technologies and people are instead pushing battery-based electric cars. Oh, and screw the poor because they can't afford them nor can they afford to buy new batteries.
Re: (Score:2)
Go google "Boeing Ethanol" and look for the Energy Post article from 2014. Boeing uses this stuff today. That will answer most of your questions and criticisms.
Growing up in the American Midwest I've read plenty about corn ethanol, I don't need to go find more. Just because Boeing uses corn ethanol doesn't make it any more of a good idea. Corn ethanol is in the end still burning food. We should not be burning food.
The US Navy has been working on a fuel synthesis process that makes jet fuel using electricity to draw CO2 from seawater (CO2 from the atmosphere dissolves in the water), crack the carbon from the CO2, crack hydrogen from the H2O, and combine the hydr
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear fission can produce 1000 watts per square meter, orders of magnitude better than energy crops.
Is it really that low? The Sun dumps 1300 watts on each square meter of Earth.
Re: (Score:1)
That may be 1300 watts per square meter above the atmosphere. On the surface it's more like 250. Then with conversion to electricity or liquid fuels it's more like 5 to 10.
Re: (Score:2)
It's also absolutely delusional. The "poor nations" mostly have economic and social indicators on par with or exceeding (somtimes by a lot) the US in the 40s, and are developing much faster than almost any developed country did.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
That's a lovely nullifying prophecy there. Declare failure in advance and use it as an excuse to not start.
It appears to be a good enough excuse for the anti-nuclear morons.
"We can't possibly built a nuclear power plant in less than 30 years, so we may as well not try."
The US Navy has been mass producing small modular reactors for decades, and getting them built on time and on budget. Admittedly the requirements for a military power plant are different than that from a civilian power plant but if it is important to lower CO2 emissions as soon as possible then perhaps the governments of the world can start with
Re: (Score:2)
The US Navy has been mass producing small modular reactors for decades, and getting them built on time and on budget.
I expect that they have not been economically viable as a civilian option. If they were, then power companies would have been building them. In the UK there are a dozen sites permitted for nuclear reactors, and only two are on the cards. If SMRs (which are now being suggested in the UK) were economically viable in the past then they would have been built on some of those sites. The UK's actually managed the fastest decarbonisation of any rich nation 1990-present without actually building a single nuclear re
Re: (Score:1)
I expect that they have not been economically viable as a civilian option.
That's almost certain for a great many reasons.
That still doesn't explain why government entities, like the US Navy, isn't using more nuclear power to lower their CO2 emissions if governments believe it so important to lower CO2 emissions. Nuclear power is economically viable for submarines and aircraft carriers. If the Navy built up economy of scale, and fossil fuel prices keep going up, then at some point it would be economically viable for every Navy vessel over some given displacement.
If they were, then power companies would have been building them.
Power companies
Re: (Score:2)
Power companies aren't building nuclear power plants because governments all over the world will not grant permits for them.
Except they very much are granting permits for them in many places, except perhaps Germany and the USA.
Re: (Score:1)
Permits to build nuclear power plants are not being issued at a sufficient rate to meet demand. That would be demand for nuclear power plants specifically and/or energy production generally, take your pick.
About 50 years ago the USA was adding about one gigawatt of nuclear power to the grid every month. Since then only a handful of new nuclear power plants were built. Energy demand has grown since, and energy demand will only grow as aging nuclear power plants need to be retired due to their age. The US
Re: (Score:2)
Permits to build nuclear power plants are not being issued at a sufficient rate to meet demand. That would be demand for nuclear power plants specifically and/or energy production generally, take your pick.
In the UK there are 12 sites permitted. Only two have any interest from companies at present to actually build on them. So in the UK it seems that permits vastly exceed the desire of companies to build plants.
If the USA does not build new nuclear power plants at the same rate it did 50 years ago then one of three things will happen. The economy shrinks.
Why can it only be nuclear that stops it shrinking? You have not made a convincing argument, just an assertion without evidence.
Re: (Score:1)
In the UK there are 12 sites permitted. Only two have any interest from companies at present to actually build on them. So in the UK it seems that permits vastly exceed the desire of companies to build plants.
Would you apply for a permit if you did not believe the government would issue one? Would you build a nuclear power plant if you thought the government would put in policies preventing any possibilities of making a profit? The UK government learned that they need nuclear power or the lights go out. The problem is that since they've been beating up the nuclear power industry for the last 50 years it is going to take a very long time to convince anyone to build a nuclear power plant.
My guess is the UK gove
Re: (Score:2)
In the UK there are 12 sites permitted. Only two have any interest from companies at present to actually build on them. So in the UK it seems that permits vastly exceed the desire of companies to build plants.
Would you apply for a permit if you did not believe the government would issue one?
In the UK, they are already permitted sites, so application for a permit is not required for those sites. They are permitted.
Would you build a nuclear power plant if you thought the government would put in policies preventing any possibilities of making a profit?
The UK, for the last twenty-five years, has had policies in place to encourage building of nuclear plants, yet only two plants seem likely.
The problem is that since they've been beating up the nuclear power industry for the last 50 years
Nothing of the sort occurred. As noted above, the policies in the last 25 have even been generous.
My guess is the UK government is going to have to build nuclear power plants themselves, or make some real sweet deals on new nuclear power plant construction.
The latter has occurred. Still only two plants likely.
Why pay so much more for nuclear power than wind power? Because it is worth more.
See, that is where I would agree with you. But even with such sweet deals, there is still relati
Re: (Score:2)
It can only be nuclear power because fossil fuels will only get harder to find as we run known reserves dry. It can only be nuclear power because like everywhere else windmills only produce power when the wind blows and solar PV only makes power when the sun shines
was not my statement.
Re: (Score:2)
We do not see lights go out when the sun sets and the winds calm because we have so much natural gas fired generation capacity and have so much cheap natural gas as fuel. Without more nuclear power under construction soon our existing power plants will get too old to safely run and/or costs to get natural gas will get far too high.
Just because this isn't a problem yet is no excuse to not plan for the future. We need to start building nuclear power plants all over the world soon, and do so in large numbers
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and don't forget that UK, and so many other nations trying to lower CO2 emissions, have been running nuclear power plants for decades.
I am very much aware of this.
Their efforts to lower CO2 emissions have been aided by nuclear power for all this time.
The number of plants has not increased, so the lowering of emissions 1990-present has not been affected positively or negatively by nuclear power during this period. It's been a pretty constant factor throughout. I am supportive of nuclear power in the mix, but also keen on not attributing a change to something that has not changed as it is inaccurate to do so.
Re: (Score:1)
Nuclear power plant numbers may have been constant but their contribution to the total power on the grid has not. As experience grew with nuclear power they've been able to improve the capacity factor of existing nuclear power plants. They went from something like 60% to over 80%. I've seen the capacity factor for some nuclear power plants exceed 100%. How does that work? They realized that the power they could safely extract was calculated to be far too low, so they turned up the power.
Nuclear power d
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear power plant numbers may have been constant but their contribution to the total power on the grid has not.
The peak of UK nuclear power production was 91 TWh in 1998. In 2020 it was about half that (46 TWh). So indeed, it has not been constant, but its contribution to low carbon energy has fallen. Your apparent argument of some sort of increasing contribution (assuming it was and you don't deny it) took two minutes of fact-checking to disprove with actual figures.
Re: (Score:1)
The world is not the UK.
Re: (Score:2)
The world is not the UK.
No, but since we were specifically talking about the UK in this instance it seemed to make sense to reference the UK. You contention was that nuclear power was key to the UK's decarbonisation of electricity generation. I pointed out with, you know, actual numbers, that you were incorrect. A response such as "Oh, having seen the numbers, I realise I was wrong" would have been a more appropriate response rather than, seemingly, trying to move the goalposts.
Re: (Score:2)
"The poor nations will not use any of that aid in a way that reduces conflict or emissions."
Please elaborate on ways this might work or at least provide a good start. Otherwise, your statement seems far more rhetorical than the O.P.'s rather common-sensibly obvious one."
if you were to simply hand them the money and them walk away, I agree with the premise. But you just don't do that. The OP's "common-sensibly obvious one" is only valid if the people pulling the purse strings are complete idiots.
So you don'
Re: (Score:2)
(Wow did I bugger that up...)
"The poor nations will not use any of that aid in a way that reduces conflict or emissions."
"Please elaborate on ways this might work or at least provide a good start. Otherwise, your statement seems far more rhetorical than the O.P.'s rather common-sensibly obvious one."
if you were to simply hand them the money and them walk away, I agree with the premise. But you just don't do that. The OP's "common-sensibly obvious one" is only valid if the people pulling the purse strings
Re: (Score:2)
They are indeed still using coal. However, China is the world's leading country in electricity production from renewable energy sources, with over triple the generation of the second-ranking country, the United States.
Did you not know that?
Re: (Score:2)
China is a large developing nation so they are likely to rank first on many things. I'd have to double check but as I recall China is ranked first on building new nuclear power plants.
Big deal. China is first on renewable energy. First on coal energy. Likely will soon be first on nuclear energy. China likely ranks above the USA in many things, they may rank higher on even people that speak English.
China is desperate for energy. They are going to get it wherever they can find it. Russia is likely the