We should be hammering on the shortcoming of the variability of intermittents. Analogy, you have two cars; solar and nuclear. Looking at the sticker they each provide 100HP. The nuclear car costs twice as much. The solar model only starts 1/5th of the time. Which one would you buy?
Steve T, I couldn't agree more. The general public, through propaganda and media coverage, always points to 'nuclear waste' as the achilles-heel of nuclear power, when the reality is the amount of deadly waste produced is extremely minuscule. We need nuclear now more than ever!
I also have scenarios of 100% renewables and mixed with nuclear and the energy costs of those. There are spread sheet models and more complex models. The lowest cost plans include a mix of nuclear solar and storage. Wind is more difficult to integrate because seasonal wind variations are not timed well with seasonal demand changes. I.e. wind produces too much power when we don't need it and too little when we do need it.
You are describing the problems of integrating a non-dispatchable generation means (wind) into a grid that depends on reliable power to properly function. In 2018, California paid adjoining states a billion dollars to take California's excess solar power. As Shellenberger noted, the most economical and reliable grids are simple, don't require storage, and are based on large, centralized dispatchable power plants.
Shellenberger @2:30 still repeating his assertion in his book per V Smil that 100% RE requires 50% of land area. Smil was assuming biofuels for his hypothetical a dozen years ago, for all transportation which would be land intensive, but nobody has any such plan.
Economic growth and the modern world is what keeps us safe. We need more fossil fuels not less. You can also blame the environmental movement for the demise of nuclear energy.
@@antcowan If wind and solar could replace fossil fuels it would have replaced them. Fossil fuels are 80% of the market. Wind and solar are 3%. There's a reason.
@@anthonymorris5084That’s a ridiculously oversimplified perspective, and I’m shocked that anybody would think it has any merit at all. Combusting fossil fuels is a relatively simple and time-worn process. Contrarily, solar power, battery, and nuclear technology require substantial knowledge of chemistry and physics, such that we’re nowhere near our hypothetical upper limits in any of these domains. This is why we continue to get much better and cheaper solar, battery storage, and nuclear technology, while our yield from fossil fuels has stagnated and, in fact, peaked, because we’re already exhausted the easily-accessible sources of it. It’s just stunningly ignorant to compare technology that’s well understood with technology that still has tremendous growth capacity.
@@davew2040x I have no idea what your argument even is or how it relates to anything I've stated. So, allow me to clarify. Inexpensive reliable energy is everything. It's why the modern world exists. The modern world is a treasured anomaly. Energy is the fundamental cost of all goods and services. You raise the price of energy, and you raise the price of everything. High energy prices are a quality-of-life tax. Expensive energy endangers lives and harms the poor the most. Billions of people across the globe have no access to energy and live in abject poverty. Humanity should be in constant pursuit of better, cheaper and more efficient forms of energy. This should be an unending process led by the free market. I have no interest in myopic, fear mongering socialist bureaucrats and activists picking and choosing any kind of products they've decided upon, let alone which energy sources to use. Fossil fuels should be replaced when there is something that can replace them. Nuclear is a prudent option while wind and solar and batteries is a fool's game. They would not exist if it wasn't for subsidies, mandates and the incessant demonization of fossil fuels.
@@anthonymorris5084 Never thought I’d see somebody fellate a combustible liquid, but here we are. The internet has all kinds. I’ll try to describe my point in the simplest possible terms, so that hopefully you can understand it: solar, wind, and even nuclear are all technologies that are improving rapidly, both in terms of efficiency but more importantly in terms of cost. You’ve tried to make the ridiculous assertion that the preponderance of fossil fuels as an energy source is proof of its superiority, which is a proposition that could only be made by somebody with an extremely limited understanding of energy production. Fossil fuels have 150 years headstart, from a time when we understood much much less about chemistry and materials engineering. That’s why renewables are on a staggering upward trajectory and fossil fuels are not. Renewables have become competitive on cost alone, and that’s *BEFORE* considering the utterly devastating financial cost of continuing to combust fossil fuels. Fortunately, people with sense in their heads were prepared to invest in understanding and developing alternate forms of energy, rather than believing some kind of farcical nonsense about fossil fuels being self-evidently better because we burn a lot of it.
We should be hammering on the shortcoming of the variability of intermittents. Analogy, you have two cars; solar and nuclear. Looking at the sticker they each provide 100HP. The nuclear car costs twice as much. The solar model only starts 1/5th of the time. Which one would you buy?
Id go Nuclear
Are we living in a world where batteries don’t exist? What is this conversation even about? What a terrible analogy.
The Senator at the end ran out of time, and so has the United States. We need to transition to nuclear 5 years ago.
Blame the environmental movement that has worked tirelessly to thwart the development of nuclear energy.
Steve T, I couldn't agree more. The general public, through propaganda and media coverage, always points to 'nuclear waste' as the achilles-heel of nuclear power, when the reality is the amount of deadly waste produced is extremely minuscule. We need nuclear now more than ever!
I also have scenarios of 100% renewables and mixed with nuclear and the energy costs of those. There are spread sheet models and more complex models. The lowest cost plans include a mix of nuclear solar and storage. Wind is more difficult to integrate because seasonal wind variations are not timed well with seasonal demand changes. I.e. wind produces too much power when we don't need it and too little when we do need it.
You are describing the problems of integrating a non-dispatchable generation means (wind) into a grid that depends on reliable power to properly function. In 2018, California paid adjoining states a billion dollars to take California's excess solar power. As Shellenberger noted, the most economical and reliable grids are simple, don't require storage, and are based on large, centralized dispatchable power plants.
Shellenberger @2:30 still repeating his assertion in his book per V Smil that 100% RE requires 50% of land area. Smil was assuming biofuels for his hypothetical a dozen years ago, for all transportation which would be land intensive, but nobody has any such plan.
Why wouldn't Senator King let Shellenberger answer the question?
Senator King doesn't agree on facts so all he can do is talk over Shellenberger.
...because that's how obnoxious, full-of-themselves Senators with superiority complexes act
#UNClimateScam #PlantsEatCarbon
Connect the attack on beef farming, which is land intensive, to the desire for solar farm corporations wanting that land for solar farms.
Ain't it amazing how a little Mathematics can change your perspective.
Economic growth and the modern world is what keeps us safe. We need more fossil fuels not less. You can also blame the environmental movement for the demise of nuclear energy.
No fossil fuel is destroying the world wind and solar can replace them with some nuclear
@@antcowan If wind and solar could replace fossil fuels it would have replaced them. Fossil fuels are 80% of the market. Wind and solar are 3%. There's a reason.
@@anthonymorris5084That’s a ridiculously oversimplified perspective, and I’m shocked that anybody would think it has any merit at all.
Combusting fossil fuels is a relatively simple and time-worn process. Contrarily, solar power, battery, and nuclear technology require substantial knowledge of chemistry and physics, such that we’re nowhere near our hypothetical upper limits in any of these domains. This is why we continue to get much better and cheaper solar, battery storage, and nuclear technology, while our yield from fossil fuels has stagnated and, in fact, peaked, because we’re already exhausted the easily-accessible sources of it.
It’s just stunningly ignorant to compare technology that’s well understood with technology that still has tremendous growth capacity.
@@davew2040x I have no idea what your argument even is or how it relates to anything I've stated. So, allow me to clarify. Inexpensive reliable energy is everything. It's why the modern world exists. The modern world is a treasured anomaly. Energy is the fundamental cost of all goods and services. You raise the price of energy, and you raise the price of everything. High energy prices are a quality-of-life tax. Expensive energy endangers lives and harms the poor the most. Billions of people across the globe have no access to energy and live in abject poverty.
Humanity should be in constant pursuit of better, cheaper and more efficient forms of energy. This should be an unending process led by the free market. I have no interest in myopic, fear mongering socialist bureaucrats and activists picking and choosing any kind of products they've decided upon, let alone which energy sources to use.
Fossil fuels should be replaced when there is something that can replace them. Nuclear is a prudent option while wind and solar and batteries is a fool's game. They would not exist if it wasn't for subsidies, mandates and the incessant demonization of fossil fuels.
@@anthonymorris5084 Never thought I’d see somebody fellate a combustible liquid, but here we are. The internet has all kinds.
I’ll try to describe my point in the simplest possible terms, so that hopefully you can understand it: solar, wind, and even nuclear are all technologies that are improving rapidly, both in terms of efficiency but more importantly in terms of cost. You’ve tried to make the ridiculous assertion that the preponderance of fossil fuels as an energy source is proof of its superiority, which is a proposition that could only be made by somebody with an extremely limited understanding of energy production. Fossil fuels have 150 years headstart, from a time when we understood much much less about chemistry and materials engineering. That’s why renewables are on a staggering upward trajectory and fossil fuels are not.
Renewables have become competitive on cost alone, and that’s *BEFORE* considering the utterly devastating financial cost of continuing to combust fossil fuels. Fortunately, people with sense in their heads were prepared to invest in understanding and developing alternate forms of energy, rather than believing some kind of farcical nonsense about fossil fuels being self-evidently better because we burn a lot of it.
renewables.. great fairy tale.. horrible reality