Trabisnikof posted:

This also applies to renewables, storage, demand response and efficiency.



This is based on an outdated understanding of the power grid. The National Renewable Energy Lab has put out numerous research reports on how to run a grid with 70-95% renewables. It requires grid investments on par with historical investments, but it is completely technically feasible.

Trabisnikof posted:

This also applies to renewables, storage, demand response and efficiency.



This is based on an outdated understanding of the power grid. The National Renewable Energy Lab has put out numerous research reports on how to run a grid with 70-95% renewables. It requires grid investments on par with historical investments, but it is completely technically feasible.

Heck Yes! Loam! posted:

the Nimby people didn't help either.

Heck Yes! Loam! posted:

If we aren't building nukes, we aren't fighting global warming. period. You can't maintain without new baseload generation that isn't carbon based, and renewables do not meet that demand. This is a major failing in Bernie's plan, and means that there are literally zero candidates taking climate change seriously.

The International Panel on Probably Some Dumb Housewives and Definitely Not Climate Scientists posted:

Nuclear power increases its share in most 1.5°C pathways with no or limited overshoot by 2050, but in some pathways both the absolute capacity and share of power from nuclear generators decrease (Table 2.15). There are large differences in nuclear power between models and across pathways (Kim et al., 2014; Rogelj et al., 2018). One of the reasons for this variation is that the future deployment of nuclear can be constrained by societal preferences assumed in narratives underlying the pathways (O’Neill et al., 2017; van Vuuren et al., 2017b). Some 1.5°C pathways with no or limited overshoot no longer see a role for nuclear fission by the end of the century, while others project about 95 EJ yr−1 of nuclear power in 2100 (Figure 2.15).

Heck Yes! Loam! posted:

I'd love to see a link debunking years of education surrounding this topic.

quote:

Renewable energy resources, accessed with commercially available generation technologies, could adequately supply 80% of total U.S. electricity generation in 2050 while balancing supply and demand at the hourly level.

All regions of the United States could contribute substantial renewable electricity supply in 2050, consistent with their local renewable resource base.

Multiple technology pathways exist to achieve a high renewable electricity future. Assumed constraints that limit power transmission infrastructure, grid flexibility, or the use of particular types of resources can be compensated for through the use of other resources, technologies, and approaches.

Annual renewable capacity additions that enable high renewable generation are consistent with current global production capacities but are significantly higher than recent U.S. annual capacity additions for the technologies considered. No insurmountable long-term constraints to renewable electricity technology manufacturing capacity, materials supply, or labor availability were identified.
...
Electricity supply and demand can be balanced in every hour of the year in each region with nearly 80% electricity from renewable resources, including nearly 50% from variable renewable generation, according to simulations of 2050 power system operations.

quote:

Finding 1: Balancing 70%–75% renewables (68%–73% wind and solar) at five-minute levels in the Eastern Interconnection is possible while maintaining 99.99% of required reserves across the scenarios.

quote:

The primary conclusion of this study is that sub-hourly operation of the grid is possible with renewable generation levels between 80% and 90%. Dynamic studies will need to be done to understand any impacts on reliability during contingencies and transient events. This moredetailed analysis supports similar conclusions about the feasibility of hourly operation in the RE Futures study. Curtailment was between 5% and 11% (of total potential generation from wind, solar, and hydropower) if there was no significant friction between balancing authorities. This result is also consistent with the RE Futures study. Market friction1 between balancing authorities can lead to substantial cost and curtailment increases, while storage or similar technologies could help mitigate curtailment and reduce costs.

ross perot in hell posted:

^{d e c r e a s e a g g r e g a t e d e m a n d}

Heck Yes! Loam! posted:

You can't go carbon neutral or negative without nuclear.

Heck Yes! Loam! posted:

"Yes, lets plunge those top three lines into the dirt, and not increase the red line. what bad could happen? Oh, whats that you say? the modern world depends on electricity? Oh. well let's just get rid of that then. "

If you don't increase nuclear, that natural gas line is going to get MUCH bigger.

VitalSigns posted:

Trabisnikof posted:

Heck Yes! Loam! posted:

Both of the things you have linked me say that we need to increase nuclear capacity to meet targets.



The only scenario that doesn;t is the one that sees global energy production plummeting.

Trabisnikof posted:

All of those scenarios I linked shows the feasibility of running renewables at 70%+. I'm glad you no longer dispute that fact.

Heck Yes! Loam! posted:

Both of the things you have linked me say that we need to increase nuclear capacity to meet targets.



The only scenario that doesn;t is the one that sees global energy production plummeting.

Heck Yes! Loam! posted:

There's also the question of what you do in the meantime before renewables get to 70%, cause the current plan is to burn more oil. it would be great if that plan instead was to build nuclear plants. The fact that No democratic candidate is proposing this means that aren't taking the issue seriously, and are more interested in placating NIMBYism than fighting global warming.

VitalSigns posted:

dude did you look at that graph, the first diagram (which shows nuclear holding constant) also shows total energy production increasing until 2050

Trabisnikof posted:

Wow that’s an incredibly dishonest framing. The GND isn’t a plan of “burn more oil” it’s a plan of build more renewables. That’s what you do to get to 70%.

Also fyi burning oil is a very small part of how we generate electricity, you mean natural gas.

Shear Modulus posted:

global energy demand should probably go down since absurd amounts of energy are wasted on stupid bullshit like mining bitcoins or turning oil into plastic that is used once then sits in a landfill for a million years or moving 20 people with 20 cars instead of one bus

Shear Modulus posted:

global energy demand should probably go down since absurd amounts of energy are wasted on stupid bullshit like mining bitcoins or turning oil into plastic that is used once then sits in a landfill for a million years or moving 20 people with 20 cars instead of one bus

VitalSigns posted:

Read the IPCC report, this is demonstrably false. Pathways to maintaining <1.5C temperature rise without increasing nuclear power generation exist.

Heck Yes! Loam! posted:

You mean the one that shows the LED (Low energy Demand) pathway? The pathway that requires a decrease in generation, which is not what anyone is predicting will happen?


You have two option of how to make power while renewables get to that threshold of 70%+. you can keep burning fossil fuels, or you can use nuclear. the clearfucking choice is nuclear. the only reason not to choose nuclear is to appease anti-nuclear idiots.

You also knew what i meant when i said oil, and are being pedantic.


Absolutely, but nobody is predicting that it will.

We do need to decrease demand by at least something like 35% by 2050, but that's putting the cart before the horse I think. We have to transition away from oil at the same time as increasing efficiencies. poo poo like bitcoin mining should be illiegal, or highly highly taxed to the point where it is not economical.

Lightning Knight posted:

What is the opportunity cost, tho. How much harder is it without nuclear?

Personally I’d prefer to not have nuclear if we don’t have to since then we are less likely to dump nuclear waste in poor communities.

Trabisnikof posted:

You’re making no sense. It’s like if I said “to get to 70% nuclear you have to keep burning coal or use renewables. Why won’t you use renewables.”

Your plan of build a bunch of nukes so we can shut them down with renewables later implies a serious misunderstanding of the issue.

We online as much carbon free capacity as we can as fast as we can, thus far the answer is clearly renewables.

Heck Yes! Loam! posted:

The cost is reducing generation to the point where people don't have electricity. the LED pathway is completely non-viable at current US living standards.

Main Paineframe posted:

It doesn't look like everyone's aiming at the same goalposts here. The Sanders plan calls for the economy to be completely decarbonized by 2050. That means that 70%, 80%, or 85% renewable isn't enough - he's aiming for 100% renewables, without gas or coal or even biofuel, something well beyond any of the studies posted here so far (most of which keep around a significant portion of carbon-using fuels to ramp up output during peak load times and when the sun goes down). And a ban on nuclear on top of that.

Heck Yes! Loam! posted:

You have two option of how to make power while renewables get to that threshold of 70%+. you can keep burning fossil fuels, or you can use nuclear. the clearfucking choice is nuclear. the only reason not to choose nuclear is to appease anti-nuclear idiots.

Addamere posted:

It is technologically feasible with current materials, and the United States has the resources to do it. All we lack is a chief executive willing to declare a state of emergency and mobilize a war economy to do it.

Lightning Knight posted:

This would own and yet I can’t think of a quicker way to get a hypothetical President Sanders coup’d or assassinated by the CIA.

Addamere posted:

The solution to this is simple: Vice President Nina Turner

Groovelord Neato posted:

takes about five years at most to build one nowadays.

Lightning Knight posted:

Current US living standards are completely unsustainable so I do not see how this works as a counter argument.

Dante80 posted:

Nuclear and hydro already provide 27% in the US. No, massive nuclear is not the clearfucking choice. In 2019+, we have alternatives.

ps: I'm pro nuclear.

Heck Yes! Loam! posted:

2. Good luck selling a decreased living standard to people.

Lightning Knight posted:

I agree this will not work but if we do agree on this then the human race is doomed lmao

Addamere posted:

You don't have to sell people on reduced quality of life; that's going to happen no matter what we do. The question is not: "Will we accept reduced quality of life?" The question is: "Will we voluntarily reduce our quality of life to avoid total catastrophe, or will we cling to our quality of life for as long as we can until everything catastrophically collapses?"

We're doing that second thing.

Addamere posted:

I personally love that Bernie's tactic when questioned is to respond by giving workers even more stuff. It's so obvious every time it happens that the people coming at him were expecting him to slip backward to compromise, and his adamant refusal to do that is exactly why he's the best candidate on the field. He knows the only publicity the media will give him (until he starts clowning people in IA and NH) is hit pieces no matter what he says, so he swings for the fences. He knows that there is nothing at all to gain by incrementalism and compromise with centrists. He has only the love of his supporters — and more supporters — to gain by going further and further to the left, and would gain literally nothing by backsliding. This is a lesson I wish the Democrats were capable of learning: you're going to get called a radical socialist if you are even one pixel to the left of literal Nazis, so you may as well double-down on actually being a socialist.

MSDOS KAPITAL posted:

I'm definitely biased having been living in Tokyo during the Tohoku earthquake and subsequent massive gently caress-up at Fukushima, but my take on nuclear power since then is "yes, quite nice and safe in theory, but no matter how idiot-proof you make this technology, mankind will just make bigger idiots." I straight-up don't trust nuclear power generation, especially under management of capitalists looking for any way to cut corners.

MSDOS KAPITAL posted:

I'm definitely biased having been living in Tokyo during the Tohoku earthquake and subsequent massive gently caress-up at Fukushima, but my take on nuclear power since then is "yes, quite nice and safe in theory, but no matter how idiot-proof you make this technology, mankind will just make bigger idiots." I straight-up don't trust nuclear power generation, especially under management of capitalists looking for any way to cut corners.

Heck Yes! Loam! posted:

The best way to meet living standards while decreasing emissions a is through nuclear power. So again, not including it in a plan to fight global warming is asinine and negligent.

MSDOS KAPITAL posted:

I'm definitely biased having been living in Tokyo during the Tohoku earthquake and subsequent massive gently caress-up at Fukushima, but my take on nuclear power since then is "yes, quite nice and safe in theory, but no matter how idiot-proof you make this technology, mankind will just make bigger idiots." I straight-up don't trust nuclear power generation, especially under management of capitalists looking for any way to cut corners.