Would a system based solely on renewables

[pscot]

be self sustaining? Can wind power generate a sufficient surplus to build replacement windmills? Can solar panels make enough electricity to build solar panels? Can ethanol make the next corn crop? Or are we just fooling ourselves?

[wtmusic]

1. Hard to know until that system exists

if it ever does.

[OKIsItJustMe]

3. Because mathematics is notoriously unreliable

Be honest here:

• Does solar power work at a small scale? Yes.
• Does it scale up in a predictable fashion? Yes.

[kristopher]

5. "A Solar Transition is Possible" - running the numbers

A Solar Transition is Possible
Peter D. Schwartzman & David W. Schwartzman
March 2011

Introduction
Arguably no challenge is more serious for the world’s future than bringing about a rapid decarbonation of the energy infrastructure with the possibility of preventing the onset of catastrophic climate change. With a mathematical model we demonstrate that this transition is technically plausible using modest inputs of existing fossil fuel reserves in the creation of a global solar power infrastructure even with existing solar technologies such as wind turbines. In addition, this global power capacity can likewise provide energy consumption per person levels for all of humanity consistent with high human development requirements.
An energy infrastructure that depends largely on renewa- bles appears inevitable as easily mined fossil fuels will be exhausted. Given the potential for catastrophic climate change and the inherently negative environmental externalities of non-renewable forms of energy production, we must find ways to transition to renewables as soon as possible. Studies of this potential transition have pointed to the possibility of a swift shift from fossil fuels to renewables, using existing technologies, while providing sufficient long-term energy needs for all humanity. Smil’s and Kramer and Haigh’s pessimism with respect to the timing of this change stems from a preoccupation with the history of major energy shifts but in our view fails to consider the power of exponential growth in R&D investments to usher in more rapid change. We submit that the massive economic investments to propel this switch are available if spending priorities are changed.

Current world’s power production is ~16.5 terawatts (TW) resulting in the consumption of 522 EJ of energy annually; electrical production (from central producers) amounts to only 13% of this. By 2030 global energy consumption is projected to rise 39% to 724 EJ.12 Theoretically, the amount of available renewable power far exceeds current human uses, by a factor of well over one thousand. Discounting inaccessible zones (i.e., open seas, high mountains), available wind power is 40-85 TW13 and solar power is ~580 TW. Current production however is extremely low with a mere 0.02 TW (wind) and 0.008 TW (solar). Thus, if we can tap into just a fraction of available renewable energy (RE), we can easily displace the need for fossil fuels and nuclear power completely. Therefore, technically-speaking, our species will not run out of available energy into the far future. Furthermore, greenhouse gas and many toxic air emissions can also be greatly diminished, potentially averting climate catastrophes as well as and substantially reducing social and environmental externalities of fossil-fuel byproducts.6 Fortunately, the utilization of this energy should not significantly contribute to climate change, in particular, by tapping into wind as a source of energy.

Building the renewable infrastructure to sustain future energy needs will require dedicated effort and use of existing non-renewable energy sources. Jacobson and Delucchi3 make the case that this goal can be accomplished as early as 2030 with a mixture of new wind, solar photovoltaic (PV), and hydroelectric power plants. Sovacool and Watts5 argue that no technical limitations exist to converting the entire electrical grid (in both the United States and New Zealand, the two countries they examine) to one based completely on renewable sources. Fthenakis et al. argue that the U.S. can supply 69% of its electrical (and 35% of total energy) needs by 2050 using solar energy alone, given expected technological improvements in PV, concentrated solar pow- er (CSP) and compressed air electrical storage (CAES). With these optimistic studies in mind, here we model the creation of new RE infrastructure as a function of a fraction of annual fossil fuel consumption in order to determine the fossil fuel inputs that may be necessary to make this transition as well as the importance of other contributing variables....

http://iprd.org.uk/wp-content/plugins/downloads-manager/upload/A%20Solar%20Transition%20is%20Possible.pdf

[CRH]

8. Do you have links? ....

to technology being developed that will increase the energy produced during semi cloudy conditions?

I witness daily the difference in generation of photo voltaic when just milk clouds pass between the sun and the panels. Generation is reduced by more than half, even in situations that will give you a sunburn in half an hour.

The largest GHG produced by far is water vapor, and is in positive feedback now. It is a temperature driven feedback, and nothing within human capabilities will reverse this as the feed back increases as the world warms.

So if solar is to have the impact you are suggesting, the technology needs to improve generation under semi cloudy conditions. Do you have any links to evolving technology that addresses this inevitable and increasing obstacle?

Thanks,

[OKIsItJustMe]

16. Solar under semi-cloudy conditions?

Even standard photovoltaic panels work on cloudy days, but for obvious reasons (there’s less light) they produce less power. Different panels may work better than others, due to the portion of the spectrum they absorb.

For this reason some sort of energy storage may be needed to support a grid powered exclusively by solar power (perhaps batteries, but there are a number of technologies which can be used.)
http://energy.gov/oe/technology-development/energy-storage

Large solar-thermal plants have been built with integrated storage.
http://www.eere.energy.gov/basics/renewable_energy/thermal_storage.html

Energy storage will likely be more of an issue in the future than it is today.

[CRH]

18. Ok, so no recent improvement, ...

for the actual effectiveness of panels on semi cloudy days.

The future for photo voltaic will depend on innovation. It is not there yet, while the future with certainty, promises more clouds on the horizon.

Thanks for the reply.

[OKIsItJustMe]

21. Oh, I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to imply there have been no improvements

There’s a lot of research going into this. Here’s just one advance:

http://www.princeton.edu/engineering/news/archive/?id=9141

[font face=Serif][font size=5]Tiny structure gives big boost to solar power[/font]

Posted Dec 05, 2012By John Sullivan

[font size=3]Princeton researchers have found a simple and economical way to nearly triple the efficiency of organic solar cells, the cheap and flexible plastic devices that many scientists believe could be the future of solar power.

The researchers, led by electrical engineer Stephen Chou, were able to increase the efficiency of the solar cells 175 percent by using a nanostructured "sandwich" of metal and plastic that collects and traps light. Chou said the technology also should increase the efficiency of conventional inorganic solar collectors, such as standard silicon solar panels, although he cautioned that his team has not yet completed research with inorganic devices.

…

With their new metallic sandwich, the researchers were able to address both problems. The sandwich — called a subwavelength plasmonic cavity — has an extraordinary ability to dampen reflection and trap light. The new technique allowed Chou's team to create a solar cell that only reflects about 4 percent of light and absorbs as much as 96 percent. It demonstrates 52 percent higher efficiency in converting light to electrical energy than a conventional solar cell.

That is for direct sunlight. The structure achieves even more efficiency for light that strikes the solar cell at large angles, which occurs on cloudy days or when the cell is not directly facing the sun. By capturing these angled rays, the new structure boosts efficiency by an additional 81 percent, leading to the 175 percent total increase.

…[/font][/font]

[pscot]

9. I understand that it works

now, as part of a system based on fossil fuels. Would it work if we had to gather and process the materials, create the solar panels, distribute and install them using only solar energy? Will ethanol power the farm? And get the grain, milk and meat to market? Can we build another Grand Coulee Damn just using the energy generated by the existing dam? These questions may seem like hypotheticals, but at some point we're going to have to provide real world answers. Take it a step further. Will we be able to maintain an infrastructure built with fossil fuels, using only the power available through renewables, while at the same time renewing the renewables?

[OKIsItJustMe]

14. You understand that it works

So, what is it that you don’t understand?

Wind is more of a problem than solar. Although it is currently cheaper, conventional wind power takes a great deal of space, compared to solar. This is one reason why (for example) off-shore wind farms are being built. (There are other reasons to build off-shore.)

[pscot]

19. I understand that solar and other renewables work in conjunction

with a fully developed infrastructure based on fossil fuels. I don't believe we can operate or maintain that infrastructure with renewables.

[OKIsItJustMe]

20. I see, so your original question was not a sincere one.

Why do you feel (for example) that solar panels cannot generate sufficient electricity to manufacture new solar panels? Is that based on thorough analysis, or is it “just a hunch” on your part?

At this point, as a system, the “solar industry” may have struck energy neutrality, that is, all solar panels, taken together, may be producing as much useful electricity, as the energy it takes to manufacture and install new ones.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es3038824


“Skeptics” point to this as a failure, a fair analysis should bring one to a different conclusion.

i.e. If all manufacturing and installation ceased today, those panels currently in place would continue to produce electricity for decades to come. However, we can continue to produce solar panels for ever increasing “energy profits.” (i.e. higher energy return on the energy we invest.)

[pscot]

23. Insincere? That hurts.

I prefer to think of myself as a simple truth seeker trying to cut through the agenda driven bullshit and determine whether my grandchildren have a viable future on this planet. You seem to feel that solutions are at hand. None the less, we continue full speed in the wrong direction. Check that; we're accelerating in the wrong direction. I wonder if you really understand how terrible the future is going to be. And how close it is.

[OKIsItJustMe]

25. Yes, insincere http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insincere

You weren’t asking a question to get any information.

You could have simply stated your view. “I don’t believe a system based solely on renewables could be self sustaining.” That would have been sincere. (Incorrect, but sincere.)

I am quite aware of the gravity of the situation we are in.

[pscot]

31. I'm not a denier with regard to renewables

I am skeptical. No one in this thread has addressed the question of our infrastructure. Can we hang on to what we have, using only renewable energy to maintain it? Even more fundamentally, population; we've far overshot the sustainable capacity of the planet. Our disease controls have been outflanked. Our agriculture is being pressed to its limits. And people are dying in China right now from heat stress. And anthropogenic climate change has only just begun to make itself felt. How many deaths would it take to trigger an economic collapse? Nobody knows, but I'm afraid we're going to find out.

[OKIsItJustMe]

36. You didn’t ask about these things…

You asked:

Would a system based solely on renewables
be self sustaining? Can wind power generate a sufficient surplus to build replacement windmills? Can solar panels make enough electricity to build solar panels? Can ethanol make the next corn crop? Or are we just fooling ourselves?

I think some of us may be fooling ourselves. A (sustainable) grid powered by renewable sources could be built. It would be helpful if we had started building that grid back in Jimmy Carter’s 2nd term.

As it stands… it may be… challenging (to say the least.)

I’m convinced at this point that we will need to explore ways to actively lower atmospheric GHG concentrations.

[GliderGuider]

50. I agree. But speaking of challenging...

"we will need to explore ways to actively lower atmospheric GHG concentrations"

Now that will be challenging....

Keeping the CO2 content of the atmosphere stable at 400 ppm would require 2 things:

1) All new energy use is carbon-free;
2) We remove (and sequester...) about 100 million tonnes of CO2 (the amount we're now adding) from the air every day.

If we were to do this by removing CO2 that's already in the air, it would require processing 250 billion tonnes of air. That would require processing around 200,000 cubic kilometers of air per day, and removing all its 400 ppm CO2. If we captured the CO2 at source wherever feasible (to allow for transportation and other widely distributed uses), we could maybe cut that in half. So we might only have to process 100,000 cubic kilometers of air a day. Say a bit under a cubic kilometer of air a second.

And that just stops the CO2 levels from rising. Any delay makes it more challenging, and any relaxation of those criteria means that the CO2 concentration will keep rising. Rising more slowly than it otherwise might, but still rising - when we know that 400 ppm is already dangerous.

So now we just have to figure out how to extract the CO2 from air that fast at at minimum energy cost, and how to sequester it forever. And we probably need to have the system up and running in a decade.

I don't think the word "challenging" conveys this level of difficulty very well.

[OKIsItJustMe]

52. … it would require processing 250 billion tonnes of air …

Not necessarily, no.

https://www.llnl.gov/news/newsreleases/2013/May/NR-13-05-07.html

[font face=Serif][font size=5]Livermore scientists develop CO2 sequestration technique that produces 'supergreen' hydrogen fuel, offsets ocean acidification[/font]

[font size=3]…

"We not only found a way to remove and store carbon dioxide from the atmosphere while producing valuable H2, we also suggest that we can help save marine ecosystems with this new technique," said Greg Rau, an LLNL visiting scientist, senior scientist at UC Santa Cruz and lead author of a paper appearing this week (May 27) in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

…

Most previously described chemical methods of atmospheric carbon dioxide capture and storage are costly, using thermal/mechanical procedures to concentrate molecular CO2 from the air while recycling reagents, a process that is cumbersome, inefficient and expensive.

"Our process avoids most of these issues by not requiring CO2 to be concentrated from air and stored in a molecular form, pointing the way to more cost-effective, environmentally beneficial, and safer air CO2 management with added benefits of renewable hydrogen fuel production and ocean alkalinity addition," Rau said.

…[/font][/font]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1222358110

[GliderGuider]

53. I'll see it when I believe it... nt

[OKIsItJustMe]

54. That sounds like “magical thinking” to me

It’s believable today, and it works today (in the lab.)

[GliderGuider]

55. No, it's the way the human brain works.

The fact that this scheme works in the lab makes absolutely no difference to me. Roll it out (help me believe it's real) and I'll see what I think about it.

[OKIsItJustMe]

56. Then that is the way your brain works, but not mine (am I not human?)

Demonstrating that something works in the lab makes a great deal of difference to me.

Tell me, do you believe that gravitation works on Pluto? (Why or why not?)

[GliderGuider]

57. If pluto exists as described, then gravity probably works there.

Because most of the time it works here.

I think we are probably different sub-species of humans.

[OKIsItJustMe]

58. More magical thinking?

Even if Pluto does not exist “as described” but merely exists in the universe, then I believe that the law of “Universal Gravitation” apples there (with allowances for “General Relativity”) even without having set foot there to test it for myself.

[FogerRox]

48. Have to use the fossil fuels we have left to build a renewable infrastructure

before the coal & oil we have runs out, or we're fucked.

[Yo_Mama]

30. Confusion between manufactured biofuels and other techs (see Kristopher's post)

The net return on manufactured biofuels is pretty slim and not always positive, but the net return on techs such as solar and wind is much higher (given proper installation, etc).

But in discussions, people tend to throw them in one category of "clean energy", leading to understandable confusion.

It is absolutely true, for example, that by the time you grow corn, havest it, haul it off to a plant and make it into ethanol, and then transport it for use you are not getting much net energy.

But the same is not true for solar, wind, or geothermal.

This is one reason why I'm pretty strong on electric cars and so forth. It seems to me that spending the money on the stuff like wind and solar (if you also spend on storage) gives you a much better net payback over time.

[FogerRox]

47. National Acedamy of Sciences and Berkeley National Labs

they would seriously disagree with you.

[OKIsItJustMe]

2. Solar could be sustainable by itself

Last edited Tue Aug 13, 2013, 02:27 PM - Edit history (1)

(The following is from a January 2003 publication. We’ve made progress since then.)

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/pdfs/32529.pdf

[font face=Serif][font size=5]Myths about Solar Electricity[/font]

[font size=3]Solar electric systems are an important part of the whole-building approach to constructing a better home or commercial building. Although these systems have delivered clean, reliable power for more than a decade, several myths have evolved that confuse the real issues of using solar electricity effectively.[/font]

[font size=4]Myth #1

Solar electricity cannot contribute a significant fraction of the nation’s electricity needs.[/font]

[font size=3]Solar electric panels can meet electricity demand on any scale, from a single home to a large city. There is plenty of energy in the sunlight shining on all parts of our nation to generate the electricity we need. For example, with today’s commercial systems, the solar energy resource in a 100-by-100-mile area of Nevada could supply the United States with all of its electricity. If these systems were distributed to the 50 states, the land required from each state would be an area of about 17 by 17 miles. This area is available now from parking lots, rooftops, and vacant land. In fact, 90% of America’s current electricity needs could be supplied with solar electric systems built on the estimated 5 million acres of abandoned industrial sites in our nation’s cities.[/font]

[font size=4]Myth #2

Solar electricity can do everything—right now![/font]

[font size=3]Solar electricity will eventually contribute a significant part of our electricity supply, but the industry required to produce these systems must grow more than tenfold over the next 10 years. In 2001, about 400 megawatts of solar electric modules were produced worldwide. According to an industry-planning document, in order to supply just 10% of U.S. generation capacity by 2030, the U.S. solar electricity industry must supply more than 3,200 megawatts per year. Most experts agree that with continued research, solar electric systems will become more efficient, even more reliable, and less expensive.

…[/font][/font]

That 100 mile square has shrunk significantly since this was published, but the basic principles remain the same.

[Kolesar]

7. The gross amount of electricity used can be reduced through efficiency programs of various sorts

That would be utility efficiency programs and appliance efficiency standards. For that matter, we waste a lot of energy transporting products that could be made closer to the consumer.

[phantom power]

4. There's a hypothesis that EROEI for industrial civilization has to be >= 5

I believe that renewables meet that, but not by a whole lot

[kristopher]

6. Renewables far exceed that.

I'd put offshore wind at close to 1:80 and solar at 1:20 or higher depending on technology.

[phantom power]

11. I'd consider 10:1 return plausible (which isn't bad). 80:1 seems wildly optimistic

Oil was around 100:1, back when it basically shot up out of the ground when we poked a hole in it. The idea that wind could approach that kind of return seems really dubious.

But maybe there's some kind of writeup somewhere.

[kristopher]

12. Background

An old analysis, based on what are today small turbines (<1MW IIRC), came up with 1:20. I scaled up the materials and output from whatever the largest was in that analysis to what was the largest near term at the time I was figuring it (5MW) and it shot up to about 1:80.

We are now looking at 10MW+ offshore turbines. Admittedly back of the envelope, but I don't think it was that far off.

[FogerRox]

49. Modern wind turbines go carbon neutral in less than a year

While new construction wind generating capacity is the cheapest LCOE in the electricity business.

[Kolesar]

10. Biofuels might need inputs from somewhere, but it is going to happen

I suppose biofuels could use heat from the sun to run distillation instead.

I say it is going to happen because we have used up half of our petro and gas resources and eventually we will have no fossil source of transportation fuel.

[kristopher]

13. Biofuels shouldn't be considered energy positive

You can get a positive energy balance, but it is minor at best. Better to think of them as storage because the real value they bring to the table is found in comparing their portable, high density energy to the power and weight of batteries.

Aircraft, agriculture, ocean shipping, and heavy earthmoving equipment have no better low carbon alternative than biofuels.

[Kolesar]

17. Leaves and chlorophyll convert the sun's energy at a tiny rate compared to PVs

That was how an activist friend of mine explained it. Alcohol is going to have to do at whatever energy density it can provide.

[Yo_Mama]

27. Excellent observation

Granted, technology could change things in the future, but at this point I think you summed it up really precisely.

We get a lot of energy from a wind turbine once it's manufactured and installed in situ. The net energy production we get from ethanol is nil to negative, depending on factors.

For this reason, we should distinguish between manufactured biofuels and renewable techs such as wind. solar and geothermal.

[kristopher]

15. From the study in post #5 above

Conclusion
We submit that the models provided here present a compelling case that the road to a sustainable future lies in concerted efforts to move from fossil fuels to renewable wind and solar energy sources. This transition can occur in two or three decades and requires very little fossil fuel (on the order of one half of a year’s present global consumption) and no revolutionary technological innovations. Since our model uses conservative estimates, the true renewable potential that is available to our society may be even more optimistic than we show. The primary anticipated obstacles to implementing this transition are non-technical, including lack of political will and economic prioritization. Nevertheless, this transition in the time scale of a few decades is imperative for global climate security.

[limpyhobbler]

22. I don't know but

what we should go for is the maximum possible percentage of power being generated by renewables.

If we have to supplement with a small percentage of fossil fuels until we get to 100% then so be it.

We can say we tried our best but just didn't make it right away. At least we will be on the right track.

[pscot]

26. As long as our CO2 emmissions continue to increase year on year

PV panels and electric cars are really just a form of bargaining. If that's what it means to try our best, the future looks brief and messy.

[OKIsItJustMe]

29. This is quite a different point from the OP

The OP asked “Would a system based solely on renewables be self sustaining?”

Currently, much of the world is using more fossil-fueled energy than they had in the past (e.g. India, China.) So, carbon emissions are climbing. This is a bad situation.

It would be much better if the (so-called) developing countries with little existing energy infrastructure built their emerging infrastructure on renewable sources.

[pscot]

32. It's different but inseperable

We can't compartmentalize this stuff. Unless there's a global sea change in the way we view the problem, we're going down hard. Tinkering with technology is like filling sandbags before the tsunami hits. It may keep your hands occupied, but it won't save your ass.

[OKIsItJustMe]

35. You imagine yourself as being “realistic”

Being “realistic” about human nature, what changes do you believe could be made which would be effective?

Primary Challenge: “… If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO[font size="1"]₂[/font] will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm, but likely less than that. …”

If we stopped all fossil fuel usage tonight, we would not meet that challenge.

We will need to “tinker with technology.”

[pscot]

37. I don't see any significant changes

being made until we're in full panic mode. Probably the most effective thing we could do right now is launch all out nuclear attacks on China and Russia. The Russians would hit us back. The world economy would grind to a halt. Carbon emissions would fall by 80%. It's probably just as well I'm not in charge.

[OKIsItJustMe]

39. So… as an alternative to a “Nuclear Armegeddon”…

…how about a little “tinkering with technology?”

BTW: Your solution is no solution. An 80% cut in carbon emissions would not be sufficient, and the devastation on the biosphere would just make matters worse.

[limpyhobbler]

51. I don't disagree.

As long as our CO2 emissions continue to increase PV panels and electric cars are really not helping.

But still if we want to reduce emissions we have to start changing our fuels. There's no way to get to the finish line without crossing the starting line. And also we need to conserve energy. And to make some lifestyle and cultural changes and system changes that will allow us to survive on changed planet. I guess it's wrong at this point to present any alternative fuel as a solution that will allow us to continue living the way we have been.

It's not like we have a choice, changes are going to be forced on us by the climate. Changes are coming and the real question is how chaotic will it be, how are people going to survive, who is going to be in charge. Wind and solar are important not only for reducing emissions but because they can make communities energy independent for when we are trying to eke out an existence in a hostile environment.

[Yo_Mama]

24. I think so, if you exclude heavy transport

The real issue is not capacity, but storage capacity. If you don't have storage capacity to store the peaks of energy production, the net power generated by wind inevitably drops as the wind capacity increases, because the peaks of wind production are pretty high.

I guess you also have to deal with the cost factor. Technically speaking, it's doable. Whether societies can bear the additional costs is another issue. It does seem that there is a cost curve - at first, integrating renewables has little cost, because you are just downshifting other production. Once you get to the point where it costs you a lot to do that, then there is another cost ledge because you add in a bunch of grid infrastructure and storage. Then once you get that done, you go back to just adding basic production capacity, and at that point the total costs per adding capacity should at least level out and perhaps start dropping.

[NoOneMan]

28. I live in a small town that prides itself on sustainability. It has about 8K people

They are mostly retired. Most sold homes in Toronto or Vancouver and then come in with outside cash.

Anyway, I thought, if this town was isolated, would there be enough people in this town (no matter how they do it) to work and produce enough in an 8 hour day to even maintain our standard of living. Is there enough people to harvest and process timber, run the water facilities, harvest the grains, mine the ore needed for metal (cars, etc), work the quarries from roads and building materials, etc.... Its actually crazy how much production it takes to maintain a small western town dependent upon products form the entire globe. It takes hundreds of thousands of people scouring resources across the map to make this town work and look the way it does (meaning exploitation in inevitably part of living this high on the hog). Even if you solve all the energy problems, resources are finite and require labor to harvest. Until each region could be self-sufficient and sustainable, we might be living well beyond a feasible level. Energy is part of the equation. There is so much more we have to think about. And until we can produce armies of free robots (carbon neutrally), I still think it will be easier to step back than go forward into a technophile utopia

[pscot]

33. That's a fundamental insight.

[wtmusic]

38. 'Its actually crazy how much production it takes'...

yes, it is. And though it may be easier to step back for us, the rest of the world will be stepping up to where we are now. There is absolutely, positively no stopping it.

So we can use Big Energy sources which are clean, or we can use Big Energy sources which are dirty, but there's no getting around Big Energy sources.

[pscot]

40. It's really too bad

that nukes are anathema to so many people. The President could maybe change that if he got on the air and leveled with the public about just how dire our situation is. There is surely enough evidence to support his case, and a public debate between Himself and fools like Inhofe and Rohrabacher could turn the scales. I was bitterly opposed to Nuclear power for a long time. The lessons of Hanford and whoops seemed decisive. But if the only choices are radiation or carbon, radiation is a no brainer.

[kristopher]

41. Fortunately for everyone those are not the only choices

Renewables produce a system that is safer, cheaper, more reliable and far more compatible with distributed wealth than the coal/nuclear centralized system we built by happenstance.

The only people portraying the carbon free choice as you have are those who are vested in the profitability of the nuclear industry.

[pscot]

42. Kristopher, if the choice is between Russian roulette

and biting down on the muzzle of a shotgun, hand me the pistol.

[kristopher]

43. Actually nuclear and coal are two sides of the same thermal generation coin.

We live in a world of economic forces and in that world nuclear and coal re-enforce each other in the energy system. Lacking a world dictator with absolute power you can't get rid of one o without getting rid of the other.

Your dedication to framing a false choice is noted, however.

[pscot]

44. Had we but world enough, and time...

[kristopher]

45. Renewables deploy far faster than nuclear.

There is no basis rooted in facts where nuclear is more desirable than renewables.

None.

[wtmusic]

46. +1

[Warpy]

34. Yes, yes, probably not, and no.

Wind and solar tied to electrolysis and fuel cells that burn the oxygen and hydrogen can be a full day/night power system. It's working on a small scale in a prototype "green" house. Fuel cells are more efficient the larger they get, so large solar and wind fields whose overproduction is used in electrolysis could conceivably power neighborhoods and factories.

Making this self sustaining also requires more efficiency in electric appliances, tools, factories, and home heating, something that is happening slowly as the price of electricity goes up.