Comment by profile53
1 year ago
> I would suggest that relying on one power source is painting yourself into a corner and then drinking the paint.
You’re aware that that is exactly what the GP poster was arguing against, right?
1 year ago
> I would suggest that relying on one power source is painting yourself into a corner and then drinking the paint.
You’re aware that that is exactly what the GP poster was arguing against, right?
What "one power source" do you think they're arguing against? The person you're replying to has noted that renewables are diverse and abundant, while refuting the notion that coal is important to the US because of its abundance because it's less abundant than many other sources of energy.
Its like bloody whack a mole here.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38945399
They seemed (to me, by omission) to really want to maintain the status quo.
I understand a "back out plan" but it turns out that there are unfortunate side effects to burning fossils, so it isn't a really decent plan.
Not once did GGP suggest an alternative. No one really wants to drink paint but in the immortal words of Mr F Gump: "Stupid is as stupid does".
I think the counter argument is that renewables are never going to replace coal/oil/gas completely as there will always be the boogey man of “what if there is no wind/sun”. Having a small amount of fossil fuel based capacity in reserve would make a huge difference politically and of the options, coal is probably the best for that.
It is less environmentally damaging than maintaining fracking operations for oil/nat gas, extremely abundant in the U.S., and can be spun up or down on the order of hours so emissions can be kept minimal when plants are not needed.
What sort of earth has no sun or wind but bags of coal, which has to be dug up, transported and burned?
Sun and wind are different to coal and oil as power generation sources, however oil n that are finite and diminishing. OK so they probably won't run out in your or my lifetime but that is hardly "never".
The backup capacity can eventually burn e-fuels, not fossil fuels, so that counterargument fails.
6 replies →
What I think is that solar will become the primary power source, so coal might be good for backup (for the US). GP didn't blamed solar.
Fair enough, but bear in mind that "solar" effectively created coal and oil! We don't need a backup as such - but the renewables need a bit more time. We have burned oil for millennia. Solar is only about 50 years old.
I still drive a petrol (gas) powered car and even when I eventually get my eye wateringly expensive electric car, I might have range issues, despite living on a small island group off of Europe - the UK.
However, that new car (with loads of plastics etc etc) will run on unicorn farts ... electricity. What generates that 'leccy is another matter too.
You and I cannot change the world but we can at least point ourselves in the direction that we would like it to go. For me that would involve less fossil fuels.