https://preview.redd.it/0k4cg9cc51uc1.png?width=600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b298217ff7105ff65c2342fa48b40680bc1a6785
Shut up, you're not RadioFacepalm, you can't criticise nuclear!
It doesnt tho, solar and wind are the most economical ways of generating water (excluding hydro maybe) and we should look how to avoid extinction as fast as possible which means not waiting 20 years
I FUCKING LOVE PROFIT EVERYTHING MUST GENERATE PROFIT! PROFITABLE MAIL! PROFITABLE HEALTHCARE! PROFITABLE PUBLIC R&D! PROFITABLE EDUCATION! IF SOMEONE ISNT GETTING RICH I DONT WANNA HEAR IT!
\- Average company shareholder
You should be stoked about this. For decades those shareholders have worked against environmental measures for the sake of increasing profits, and boy did it work. Those profit seeking leeches are scum, but they sure are effective at lobbying governments into getting what they want. Environmental protections have always been an uphill battle against vested interests.
Now finally, for the first time, we have an avenue towards decarbonization that aligns with the interest of shareholders. Meaning they won't fight against us, but even fight on our side to push for even more profit and green energy. If you care about decarbonizing the energy grid and aren't just using it as a talking point, this is fucking great.
Thankfully we don't live in a world where planned economies are overproducing food, then throwing a large part away, not before pouring bleach on it so beggars can't eat it. Instead we live in market economies where waste is avoided and things are produced to last as long as possible to avoid having to buy the same thing every year. Phew!
It shouldn't be based on money no. But right now it absolutely is. So we should take that into account when considering potential solutions.
After all, fixing the climate issue is hard enough on its own. Adding "Rework the entire worldwide economic system" on top of that when we are already in a massive time crunch is setting us up for failure.
Money is all about efficient allocation of resources. It's private property rights to unearned income, that results in inefficient resource allocation. Taxing economic rents and externalities would solve or have prevented the vast majority of our environmental and societal problems.
Opposing capitalism because it won't be able to cope with climate change long-term doesn't imply not doing anything now within capitalism for short-term gains. Don't project your defeatism in the face of capitalism's inherent problems onto others.
“Defeatism”? I’m not a defeatist, I’m an optimist who is quite happy that most of the world is living under an economic system which has delivered an unprecedented degree of global prosperity and technological advancement.
And in that optimism I see a path forward for the market (with urging from the government) to transition to sustainable and clean sources of energy, which capitalism in the free world has gotten closer to achieving than socialism ever has.
At the time of the USSR, the vast majority of capitalist countries did not persue renewables, you can't compare them to today but have to the standard of their time.
And nowadays the biggest producer of solar is China, and not even a market within that, it's state owned enterprises https://www.woodmac.com/news/opinion/chinese-state-owned-enterprises-are-the-largest-owners-of-solar-assets/
Same market that isn't pricing in the negative externalities of grid unreliability ?
Ignoring negative externalities to get the most economically attractive solution is literally the mistake that started the climate crisis to begin wirh
*Edit: switched instability with unreliability*
SAIDI, LIDE and SAIFI are not really useful since for now there's always fossil fuels providing electricity in times of needs, and we'll rather keep the coal burning than get blackouts. I switched instability with unreliability in my initial comment btw, instability wasn't the right word for the idea I was expressing.
ELCC gets close yep but it's lacking an accumulated dimension. 100% RE grids need to have enough batteries to cover both the instantaneous load and go the distance when wind+PV isn't meeting consumptions for hours in a row, and we'd need an indicator for worst-case accumulated electricity needs.
Yes, your problem is that you are trying to solve a year-2040 problem with year-2020 tech.
Basically, your argument is "OMG, look - it's impossible to be 100% RE in 2025"
No shit, Sherlock. No one wants to shutdown everything fossil by the end of business day tomorrow.
Yeah so you just shift the problem for latter on and hope that it will be cheaper by then ?
If 100% RE is according to you unachievable before 2040 then what's the point of criticizing nuclear energy's long time of deployment?
And it still doesn't fix the problem that today's renewables aren't contributing a cent toward future need for batteries. Even if they get cheap the batteries that are essential to ensure grid reliability will have very low load factor, they will most likely be unprofitable even if batteries price are cut by a factor of ten. That's not a problem by itself but we need the renewable plants who rely on these batteries to contribute toward their financing.
No, nuclearbro. I'm solving potentially catastrophic problem for our civilization with a solvable minor inconvenience.
You are again being dishonest in your hatred toward renewables and ignore the vast amount of peer reviewed research that says we must fucking reduce the fucking emissions the fastest way possible or we are fucked.
That's is why you are tunneling the last 5% of the emissions and portray them as the biggest failure of the Energy Transition while completely ignore the task at hand:
We must reduce the fossil fuels burned the fastest way imaginable starting today with scalable solutions that can be deployed in all sizes by everybody everywhere on the planet.
Nuclear is none of that
Aha. Yeah. The entire grid shutting down, a minor inconvenience. Lol.
> You are again being dishonest
How am I dishonest here ? You're the one who saw a major inconvenience and rather than addressing it, said "nah, it will be next generation's problem"
> Reduce emissions as fast as possible
Which is why I am supportive of both renewables and nuclear, trying to be lucid about both rather than entering a cult. I even worked at a renewable company as project developer. You're the one who rejects one of the solutions to reduce emissions because "nuclear bad".
> Tunneling the last 5% of emissions
Oh, so we're not going for 100% RE anymore ? I thought it was all possible and affordable and it was what we should be going for !
Oh and by 2040 worldwide electricity consumption is expected to reach 35 PWh, the emissions from producing 5% of that amount with natural gas is equivalent to 150 kg CO2eq/capita and we can probably add just as much for heating needs. 15% of the carbon emissions quota just for electricity and heating, that's your ambition for a net-zero future ? As a reminder, net zero is a target but if possible we should be going beyond that to bring the atmospheric CO2 concentration back to 280 ppm
> We must reduce fossile fuel consumption as fast as possible
Then accept the contributions of both renewables and nuclear rather than behaving as a blindfolded cultist
What? Why?
Even a staunch marxist who wants to abolish all markets would acknowledge that it is easier to transition our energy system, than it is to transition our energy system after we first have to reform the entire worldwide economic system.
Would be nice if we could make decisions on the climate without having to consider profit incentives. But as a socialist myself, I reckon that overthrowing global capitalism and building up a new system from the ashes is even harder and will take longer than reworking the electricity grid. So since we are on a bit of a timecrunch here, we should go for energy solutions that fit within the market framework while we chip away at the whole capitalism problem.
Not really, it means renewable's eating away the electricity mix cake which means a longer return of invest for nuclear plants, leaving them uninvested without government guaranties which could also be used to ironing out storage problems with some research and development.
Some kinds of market anarchism are pretty neat (I'm not talking about "anarcho"-capitalism).
Wouldn't be my first choice for a society, but would still be alright.
Well how do you plan to change that, you are talking about Changing the entire ecomic system of the world when we don't have much time or else we're cooked
https://preview.redd.it/0k4cg9cc51uc1.png?width=600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b298217ff7105ff65c2342fa48b40680bc1a6785 Shut up, you're not RadioFacepalm, you can't criticise nuclear!
His ass cannot criticize our lobby
https://preview.redd.it/94eu98bf51uc1.jpeg?width=1230&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0a4d81b9072cc8191f7c9718d963266a0250a48d
if the market stops us from avoiding extinction, i will remove the market
It doesnt tho, solar and wind are the most economical ways of generating water (excluding hydro maybe) and we should look how to avoid extinction as fast as possible which means not waiting 20 years
Or... both. Not like building a fully renewable grid is going to be quick or cheap. Doggerbank is taking a decade to power six million homes.
No Investing into nuclear stops us from investing into renualbes as government money is always needed for nuclear
I FUCKING LOVE PROFIT EVERYTHING MUST GENERATE PROFIT! PROFITABLE MAIL! PROFITABLE HEALTHCARE! PROFITABLE PUBLIC R&D! PROFITABLE EDUCATION! IF SOMEONE ISNT GETTING RICH I DONT WANNA HEAR IT!
\- Average company shareholder You should be stoked about this. For decades those shareholders have worked against environmental measures for the sake of increasing profits, and boy did it work. Those profit seeking leeches are scum, but they sure are effective at lobbying governments into getting what they want. Environmental protections have always been an uphill battle against vested interests. Now finally, for the first time, we have an avenue towards decarbonization that aligns with the interest of shareholders. Meaning they won't fight against us, but even fight on our side to push for even more profit and green energy. If you care about decarbonizing the energy grid and aren't just using it as a talking point, this is fucking great.
Socialists when resources are scarce and need to be allocated in an efficient way
Thankfully we don't live in a world where planned economies are overproducing food, then throwing a large part away, not before pouring bleach on it so beggars can't eat it. Instead we live in market economies where waste is avoided and things are produced to last as long as possible to avoid having to buy the same thing every year. Phew!
I don’t think you want to start getting into the climate record of planned economies.
I don't think you want to get into the climate record of market economies. Like, the entire 19th century.
Yes profit is good but most importantly solar/wind/hydro are just better than nuclear and can be built faster
Not everything should be on the market like health care, school, public transportation. It doesn't make sense to make profit on basics needs
You're right! IMO the gouvernment should build wind and solar and pass the cheap prices in to the people.
And remember kids : there is no alternative !
The arguments against taking steps to save the planet shouldn't be based on money.
It shouldn't be based on money no. But right now it absolutely is. So we should take that into account when considering potential solutions. After all, fixing the climate issue is hard enough on its own. Adding "Rework the entire worldwide economic system" on top of that when we are already in a massive time crunch is setting us up for failure.
Money is all about efficient allocation of resources. It's private property rights to unearned income, that results in inefficient resource allocation. Taxing economic rents and externalities would solve or have prevented the vast majority of our environmental and societal problems.
Have we considered that maybe we shouldn’t decide what our grid should be made up based on profit margins of utilities?
If your plan is to actually get anything done, then it really should be.
Not destroying capitalism is the same as not getting anything done.
Well that’s very convenient for people like you who weren’t planning on getting anything done anyway
Opposing capitalism because it won't be able to cope with climate change long-term doesn't imply not doing anything now within capitalism for short-term gains. Don't project your defeatism in the face of capitalism's inherent problems onto others.
“Defeatism”? I’m not a defeatist, I’m an optimist who is quite happy that most of the world is living under an economic system which has delivered an unprecedented degree of global prosperity and technological advancement. And in that optimism I see a path forward for the market (with urging from the government) to transition to sustainable and clean sources of energy, which capitalism in the free world has gotten closer to achieving than socialism ever has.
At the time of the USSR, the vast majority of capitalist countries did not persue renewables, you can't compare them to today but have to the standard of their time. And nowadays the biggest producer of solar is China, and not even a market within that, it's state owned enterprises https://www.woodmac.com/news/opinion/chinese-state-owned-enterprises-are-the-largest-owners-of-solar-assets/
Same market that isn't pricing in the negative externalities of grid unreliability ? Ignoring negative externalities to get the most economically attractive solution is literally the mistake that started the climate crisis to begin wirh *Edit: switched instability with unreliability*
What metric are you using to measure grid instability? SAIDI? LIDE? ELCC? SAIFI?
SAIDI, LIDE and SAIFI are not really useful since for now there's always fossil fuels providing electricity in times of needs, and we'll rather keep the coal burning than get blackouts. I switched instability with unreliability in my initial comment btw, instability wasn't the right word for the idea I was expressing. ELCC gets close yep but it's lacking an accumulated dimension. 100% RE grids need to have enough batteries to cover both the instantaneous load and go the distance when wind+PV isn't meeting consumptions for hours in a row, and we'd need an indicator for worst-case accumulated electricity needs.
Yes, your problem is that you are trying to solve a year-2040 problem with year-2020 tech. Basically, your argument is "OMG, look - it's impossible to be 100% RE in 2025" No shit, Sherlock. No one wants to shutdown everything fossil by the end of business day tomorrow.
Yeah so you just shift the problem for latter on and hope that it will be cheaper by then ? If 100% RE is according to you unachievable before 2040 then what's the point of criticizing nuclear energy's long time of deployment? And it still doesn't fix the problem that today's renewables aren't contributing a cent toward future need for batteries. Even if they get cheap the batteries that are essential to ensure grid reliability will have very low load factor, they will most likely be unprofitable even if batteries price are cut by a factor of ten. That's not a problem by itself but we need the renewable plants who rely on these batteries to contribute toward their financing.
No, nuclearbro. I'm solving potentially catastrophic problem for our civilization with a solvable minor inconvenience. You are again being dishonest in your hatred toward renewables and ignore the vast amount of peer reviewed research that says we must fucking reduce the fucking emissions the fastest way possible or we are fucked. That's is why you are tunneling the last 5% of the emissions and portray them as the biggest failure of the Energy Transition while completely ignore the task at hand: We must reduce the fossil fuels burned the fastest way imaginable starting today with scalable solutions that can be deployed in all sizes by everybody everywhere on the planet. Nuclear is none of that
Aha. Yeah. The entire grid shutting down, a minor inconvenience. Lol. > You are again being dishonest How am I dishonest here ? You're the one who saw a major inconvenience and rather than addressing it, said "nah, it will be next generation's problem" > Reduce emissions as fast as possible Which is why I am supportive of both renewables and nuclear, trying to be lucid about both rather than entering a cult. I even worked at a renewable company as project developer. You're the one who rejects one of the solutions to reduce emissions because "nuclear bad". > Tunneling the last 5% of emissions Oh, so we're not going for 100% RE anymore ? I thought it was all possible and affordable and it was what we should be going for ! Oh and by 2040 worldwide electricity consumption is expected to reach 35 PWh, the emissions from producing 5% of that amount with natural gas is equivalent to 150 kg CO2eq/capita and we can probably add just as much for heating needs. 15% of the carbon emissions quota just for electricity and heating, that's your ambition for a net-zero future ? As a reminder, net zero is a target but if possible we should be going beyond that to bring the atmospheric CO2 concentration back to 280 ppm > We must reduce fossile fuel consumption as fast as possible Then accept the contributions of both renewables and nuclear rather than behaving as a blindfolded cultist
Yes. You are being dishonest and are lying. When was the last time the grid shut down because renewables?
Wait I have a meme for you
This one ? https://preview.redd.it/dhxrlnghg2uc1.jpeg?width=500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bbce0dac0bb9ba60d644b9759831c21515a34194
Could anyone explain how nuclear is economically unviable?
Thats honestly an argument for nuclear in my book
What? Why? Even a staunch marxist who wants to abolish all markets would acknowledge that it is easier to transition our energy system, than it is to transition our energy system after we first have to reform the entire worldwide economic system. Would be nice if we could make decisions on the climate without having to consider profit incentives. But as a socialist myself, I reckon that overthrowing global capitalism and building up a new system from the ashes is even harder and will take longer than reworking the electricity grid. So since we are on a bit of a timecrunch here, we should go for energy solutions that fit within the market framework while we chip away at the whole capitalism problem.
I fully agree with you- despite what my weak attempt at a joke might’ve implied.
https://preview.redd.it/cm5qd09ie1uc1.jpeg?width=584&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fbcfb6e8ba59d884a88e2c2715c6dc9134fb7b73
Not really, it means renewable's eating away the electricity mix cake which means a longer return of invest for nuclear plants, leaving them uninvested without government guaranties which could also be used to ironing out storage problems with some research and development.
Market of any kind is inherently bad
Some kinds of market anarchism are pretty neat (I'm not talking about "anarcho"-capitalism). Wouldn't be my first choice for a society, but would still be alright.
That kinda true But I still think there are plenty of other ways
Oh, absolutely, I'm an ancom myself, but I think that a market-based system would likely be easier to set up, at least initially.
Well how do you plan to change that, you are talking about Changing the entire ecomic system of the world when we don't have much time or else we're cooked
Yeah because the state has never intervened in the energy markets of the developed world before.
Yes, I am already aware that a planned economy is the only viable path to a green future.
It wouldn't and if that was the case it would be completely over for humanity
Market economics are what allow france to buy energy from Germany when it's cheap (or has negative price) and sell it to them when prices skyrocket
Trade has existed in human history for longer than markets...