• Frokke@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    29
    ·
    6 months ago

    Aaaw, someone doesn’t like the tone used? Well that’s unfortunate. How about you start with leaving dem bad faith arguments?

    Renewables will not cover your usage. Period. You will need something to cover what renewables won’t be able to deliver. Your options are limited. Nuclear is the only sustainable option for many places. Sure you got hydro (ecological disasters) or geothermal in some places, but most do not have those options.

    It’s not an XOR problem.

    • Renewables will not cover your usage.

      False. Multiple countries are already able to run on 100% renewables for prolonged periods of time. The bigger issue is what to do with excess power. Battery solutions can cover moments where renewables produce a bit less power.

      • cqst@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        100% renew

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_renewable_electricity_production

        All the countries that manage 100% renewable power use high levels of hydropower. Which is not an option for many countries and has it’s own ecological problems associated with it.

        Also, these 100% renewable countries have very little electricity requirements.

        https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-in-the-us-generation-capacity-and-sales.php

        The United States produces at least produces four million Gigawatt hours of electricity per year. Compare that to some of these “100% renewable” countries.

        • Sure, most countries that already made it use hydro. But Denmark is already up tp 80% without hydro, and the UK and Germany are already nearly halfway there without any meaningful hydro. And there’s still so much solar and wind that can still be installed. They’re nowhere near their maximum production capacity yet.

          100% from renewables is clearly feasible and achievable. Of course it takes time and investments, but nuclear energy will takre more time and investments to get going again.

        • Frokke@lemmings.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          Oh noes, facts. The bane of all renewables evangelicals…

          Just wait till you have to tell them they’re looking at irrelevant data. Not only are they using specific usecases that are not applicable to a large majority of countries, but they’re also using data that doesn’t support the long term fossil fuel goals.

          Just wait till you tell them how much the electricity requirements will skyrocket once we’re transitioning to EV, dropping fossil fuel heating, cooking, cargo trucks switch to EV, etc etc.

      • Frokke@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        15
        ·
        6 months ago

        In the summer. In ideal conditions. Lets talk again once you’ve tried 12 continuous months in the heavily populated northern hemisphere. 😉