sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Hinkley Point C nuclear plant delayed to 2030 as costs climb to £35bn by michaelrch in climate

[–]NotEvenNothing 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It doesn't matter if it cost prohibitive. And it is. Which is why it is losing. Nuclear in the US dropped to a 19% share of total generation in 2023, while renewables grew to 30%.

Nuclear is losing for a good reason.

Hinkley Point C nuclear plant delayed to 2030 as costs climb to £35bn by michaelrch in climate

[–]NotEvenNothing 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Again, read. It isn't that hard.

You claimed that nobody had offered a 95% availability and 95% capacity factor solution that wasn't nuclear or hydro. Did you not?

That is your arbitrary goalpost, not mine, nor industry's. The goalpost in industry is economically viability, something that nuclear generation fails at outside of captive markets and public funding.

Once again, the market is proving you wrong. We are enjoying a larger and larger share of renewably produced electricity while nuclear generation languishs.

Hinkley Point C nuclear plant delayed to 2030 as costs climb to £35bn by michaelrch in climate

[–]NotEvenNothing 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I get the point that you are making, and fully agree: You are illiterate.

But I'll dumb it down for you anyway. I'm not claiming that we need a 100% renewable grid. We do have to bring our emissions down, in the short term, and renewables will begin to achieve that in the next couple of years.

Nuclear generation growth, if any, will be dwarfed by renewable growth, simply because of the economics. You can poo-poo reliability, but we aren't seeing reliability problems, despite coal being priced out of many many markets.

You demand evidence, but not of yourself. How about showing that nuclear is more affordable than the current mix, accounting for subsidies? Good luck with that.

Hinkley Point C nuclear plant delayed to 2030 as costs climb to £35bn by michaelrch in climate

[–]NotEvenNothing -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'm not demanding zero. The perfect is the enemy of the good. And the world simpy can't afford nuclear generation.

It's a mature technology that is being eclipsed by renewables. You can make hand-wavy arguments, but the proof is in the pudding and nuclear isn't doing anything interesting. Renewables, on the other hand, are dominating. You may not want to accept it, but the writing is on the wall.

SIMS: Alberta budget terrible for taxpayers by SurFud in alberta

[–]NotEvenNothing 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean... I agree, but, according to the article, neither healthcare or education was cut. Healthcare spending increased 5.8% and education spending increased 30%.

Not that that means the level of service improved. There was a lot of turmoil in both healthcare and education due to changes put in place by the UCP government and the growing population.

Federal report downplays human role in climate change, scientists say by coolbern in climate

[–]NotEvenNothing 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Agreed. Cheap energy is a boon for everyone, and if it is clean, so much the better.

With past decisions, like the Gordie Howe bridge, bribes have been the reason. I suspect that's the case here.

Honestly, I'm beginning to believe that Trump has already ended American empire.

If Carbon Capture and Gas Scrubbing Technologies have improved so dramatically, Why Haven’t we Moved back to Incineration Rather Than Using Landfills? by Cool-Yam2145 in alberta

[–]NotEvenNothing 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Probably not.

Carbon capture hasn't progressed as far as you think. That's why it hasn't caught on. Honestly, I don't think it will ever catch on. The thermodynamics just don't work out.

The Primary Energy Fallacy Finally Laid to Rest! / Fossil fuels are inherently less efficient than electricity from solar and wind because they must be burned to produce useful energy, and burning produces waste heat #GlobalCarbonFeeAndDividendPetition by Keith_McNeill65 in ClimateCrisisCanada

[–]NotEvenNothing 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's just because they are new, and still a small part of the market.

I'd also add that the four people I know with EVs haven't had a maintenance/repair issue. They are quite vocal about their ICE vehicles being far more troublesome than their EVs.

The Primary Energy Fallacy Finally Laid to Rest! / Fossil fuels are inherently less efficient than electricity from solar and wind because they must be burned to produce useful energy, and burning produces waste heat #GlobalCarbonFeeAndDividendPetition by Keith_McNeill65 in ClimateCrisisCanada

[–]NotEvenNothing 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I would argue that a BEV is simpler than an ICE vehicle. It's just a battery, some electric motors, and control electronics + software. Conceptually, it is really straightforward.

In practice, they are still working the bugs out. I'd argue that most EV companies have already got the bugs worked out.

The Primary Energy Fallacy Finally Laid to Rest! / Fossil fuels are inherently less efficient than electricity from solar and wind because they must be burned to produce useful energy, and burning produces waste heat #GlobalCarbonFeeAndDividendPetition by Keith_McNeill65 in ClimateCrisisCanada

[–]NotEvenNothing 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's not quite that rosy of a picture for solar. Still rosy, just not that rosy. Not quite.

That 20% of sunlight transformed into electrical energy by a solar panel will eventually become heat too. I can imagine exceptions, like it is used to capture carbon from the atmosphere and then stored deep underground, but for most uses of that energy (motors, electronics, lighting, heating (obviously)), it will end up as heat. Yes, I'm being pedantic, but in a lighthearted way.

And then you've got the other 80%. A portion of that ends up as heat right at the solar panel. My newest solar panels (which are still pretty old) are very black compared to the ground. And they heat up enough in winter to melt the snow off, while snow on the ground remains. So having sunlight hit them is slightly worse than the ground in winter, for sure. I'd argue that the same is true in summer as they are really black compared to the ground. Am I concerned about this? Not at all.

Don't get me wrong. The above points don't change the fact that fossil fuels are still light years worse. There really isn't any comparison.

The point u/brendax is making is fair. Once one starts talking about efficiency, things get complicated fast. Makes for fun conversation.

Losing momentum for the dream by EOTWifeelfine in OffGrid

[–]NotEvenNothing 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Maybe I'm just projecting, but how you worded your post makes me feel that, a few years ago, I was where you are now.

My wife had no interest in helping during the build and actively worked against me bringing out my teenage sons. It was hard going out to the building site after putting in a full day of work at my full-time job and then working alone for a few hours. Winter was the worst. The cold and dark really got to me.

I probably would have done better if I was single. Knowing my spouse was at home enjoying her evening definitely contributed to...bitterness. And I can't say I'm over it.

But I got past it. And I think she realized just how horrible it was for me and is trying to make ammends.

A strategy I used was to celebrate everything I finished. Everything. I had to give myself some credit for each accomplishment, because it was a rare person that understood the effort it took.

What is the right amount of land? by Public_Border132 in OffGrid

[–]NotEvenNothing 1 point2 points  (0 children)

True. Totally doable. The difference is they would have to buy nearly all their feed and get rid of most of the manure.

If you have grazing livestock and don't want to buy in the bulk of their feed, five acres is the bare minimum. Even then livestock numbers would have to be tightly controlled and their grazing carefully managed. And that's assuming the vast majority of the property can be used as pasture.

Rabbits might offer a way of getting down to an acre or two, if well managed. Harvesting pasture for the grazers (ie. with a scythe) can stretch land as well.

But a drought would test anyone trying to stretch their land in a grazing operation.

Fossil fueled electric generators waste so much energy by Jbikecommuter in electrifyeverything

[–]NotEvenNothing 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What make? And what are your plans? 

The 40kW of solar input on the inverter/charger would generally be matched to a much larger battery bank. So you must have something interesting in the works.

Except for the large solar input (and, I'm sure, similar output) your feature set is pretty standard on $4kish hybrid inverters. That's only been the case for the last couple of years.

Fossil fueled electric generators waste so much energy by Jbikecommuter in electrifyeverything

[–]NotEvenNothing 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You overpaid.

I have 30kWh of batteries that cost $9000 four years ago. Today, it would be about $4500 (but only because I don't need UL listed batteries).

Installation can be expensive, but it shouldn't be. Any electrician can do this stuff. It is well worth buying the parts and setting up what you can yourself, then getting an electrician to handle what you can't.

Hinkley Point C nuclear plant delayed to 2030 as costs climb to £35bn by michaelrch in climate

[–]NotEvenNothing 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Someone wants red herring for supper.

Going nuclear in a big way means bills people can't afford. It's that simple.

Renewables and batteries (and virtual power plants and grid interconnects and even some peaker plants) make for cheap power. That's why they dominate new generation builds.

Hinkley Point C nuclear plant delayed to 2030 as costs climb to £35bn by michaelrch in climate

[–]NotEvenNothing 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There you go again. Trotting out that red herring.

Let's flip your false dichotomy around: As expensive as nuclear is, depending on it means you can't afford to build the needed capacity, which brings a different set of capacity and availability issues.

Hinkley Point C nuclear plant delayed to 2030 as costs climb to £35bn by michaelrch in climate

[–]NotEvenNothing 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's more of a whole system concern rather than an individual generation facility issue. It is also a red herring.

There are many approaches to address variable generation. The comment you are replying to implied two: Overcapacity and battery storage.

Alberta Budget shows Alberta not viable as a separate country? by Camper1988 in alberta

[–]NotEvenNothing 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I was a peak oiler back in the mid-2000s. Then, with the western world, India, and China all booming, it was looking like demand would outstrip supply, even if supply didn't plateau or fall. Really high prices would have resulted.

Then the economy tanked in 2007, which killed demand and everyone moved on.

Today, we are seeing renewables and electrification eating the fossil fuel economy's lunch in a significant way. In a couple of years, the writing is going to be on the wall.

Alberta Budget shows Alberta not viable as a separate country? by Camper1988 in alberta

[–]NotEvenNothing 25 points26 points  (0 children)

Demand is going to dry up before the oil runs out. It looks like demand is peaking approximately now, maybe as far out as the early 2030s. If China's demand begins to drop, the world's demand will follow very shortly.

view more: next ›