Comment by XorNot
4 days ago
"we can get clean energy by continuing to burn fossil fuels".
If this isn't about ceasing carbon emissions then none of this is necessary. Fire up the coal plants!
4 days ago
"we can get clean energy by continuing to burn fossil fuels".
If this isn't about ceasing carbon emissions then none of this is necessary. Fire up the coal plants!
Calculate the area-under-the-curve (AUC) of two time series over, say, the next 50 years:
(1) the emissions of a 98% renewable + 2% natural gas grid that comes online in 6 years, assuming fossil fuels for t between [t, t+6 years].
(2) the emissions of a 100% fission grid that comes online in 16 years, assuming fossil fuels for t between [t, t+16 years].
If you insist on ignoring the temporal nature of cumulative emissions, then sure, you can arrive at a convenient but false conclusion. But any honest analysis will consider the emissions in that [t+6 year, t+16 year] interval.
(... it would also consider things like social licensing risks leading to early plant closures like what's happening in Germany, or the fact that nuclear will likely be paired with natural gas too because demand itself is variable, and overbuilding nuclear is expensive.)
Ehm, you should be fair and not fudge the numbers in your favor. :-)
Start both with the same (current) % for renewables and (1) have some realistic ramp-up of renewables to reach 98%, and (2) keep the renewables more modestly rising in the fission version, while fading-out fossils in favor of fission
You should also account the carbon foodprint of grid-level energy storage (yes, it will be needed, even with the natural gas plans), vs the foodprint for fission plants (undoubtedly quite bad).