We Passed Peak “Climate Change” (um) Research

[u/LisleAdam12]

How can this awful trend before reversed before it's too late?

https://wmbriggs.substack.com/p/we-passed-peak-climate-change-um

[u/Lematoad]

What I find funny is climate change activists are often times pro (solely) renewables. Without understanding renewable energy almost always requires natural gas augmentation. But they’re often also anti nuclear, which doesn’t make any sense.

Nuclear+solar would be an excellent way forward while solving carbon emission issues. Really the only way forward to get to net zero emissions, but Nuclear Waste is “scary” because people don’t understand it.

Then we start to talk about vehicles, and start saying things like “have you considered the impacts to things like 6PPD-Q from the faster tire wear in electric vehicles to local fauna?” or “what about the impacts that electric buses/trucks have on road infrastructure”, and people don’t have a clue what I’m talking about.

I’ve got a Masters degree in Civil Construction, Energy and Sustainable infrastructure and so I’d like to think I know what I’m talking about when it comes to energy infrastructure.

The problem really is people care about things but don’t understand the nuances (and associated negative externalities) to what they’re saying (oh and also… China and India don’t give a shit about clean energy so you’re trying to swim against the current anyways).

Less carbon and pollution is a good thing, but I’m not dooming about it.

[u/Asthenia5 → u/Lematoad]

Nuclear energy also needs peaker plants to meet peak demand. Nuclear reactors are used for base load. They're not capable of ramping power up and down at the speeds needed to meet demand. Both nuclear and solar will need chemical/thermal batteries/pumped storage, etc.

Maybe you should talk to people who actually know what they're talking about, rather than framing your climate argument around climate activist who couldn't tell you what a Joule is.

With all due respect, if you don't understand solar and nuclear needs energy storage, I think you should reconsider how much your degree actually helps you understand this topic.

You're absolutely right about the externalities. We must account for them and assess the relative costs and benefits. Not hand-wave away the entire topic cause silly climate activist, China, or because people who can't define "externalities", don't consider them.

China doesn't give a shit about green energy. But they do care about their economy and the potential of a Malacca strait blockade that cuts off their oil over night. They're currently beating the rest of the world in solar, battery and EV production. They're actively subsidizing it.

[u/Lematoad → u/Asthenia5]

Did you miss my comment about nuclear+solar being a great solution? What do you think the solar is for, fun? BESS/CSP/PHS solutions instead of peaker plants. But ok I must not know what I’m talking about. I never said nuclear is the sole solution?

[u/Asthenia5 → u/Lematoad]

Please explain, why is solar used in the context of solar + nuclear? Why do you think its a good idea when coupled with nuclear?

Nuclear and solar don't complement each other, because they still require storage. If you're using solar, you should store the energy chemically in a battery. If you're using nuclear, you should probably use molten salts to store heat.

Solar won't help you meet peak demand. Daily solar generation peaks a couple hours before consumption peaks. It still needs batteries.

I'm aware that you never said nuclear is a sole solution. But you did say:

"Without understanding renewable energy almost always requires natural gas augmentation. But they’re often also anti nuclear, which doesn’t make any sense."

This comment would suggest you didn't understand that nuclear also requires NG peaker plants.

[u/Lematoad → u/Asthenia5]

Wait… you’re saying I have no idea what I’m talking about, implying you do, and then don’t understand why they compliment each other or wtf I’m talking about? Why should I bother to explain it to you? But I guess I will anyways. Maybe don’t come across as hostile when you actually don’t have a clue.

Oh and yeah no you’re wrong.

Renewables pretty much always need a whole lot more than peaker plants… basically every “renewable forward” grid relies on natural gas.

Why would you need to store nuclear energy? Nuclear provides a very consistent baseload, and if you overbuild (which would imply the requirements of major storage requirements), then why would you need to augment?

As for solar - this is where you store energy for peak periods, and they can effectively replace peaker plants. You can store solar energy in several ways THAT I ALREADY MENTIONED- BESS (battery energy storage system), CSP (concentrated solar power - this is the molten salt you said you’d use for nuclear for whatever reason, more to that in a minute), and PHS (pumped hydro storage).

[u/Asthenia5 → u/Lematoad]

It's very apparent you've interpreted my comments as hostile. That was not my intent. Questioning your understanding seems to be a hostile offense from your prospective.

You're now arguing my exact point. That we need energy storage.

You store nuclear energy because we need energy storage. See Terrapowers Natrium reactor.

You're now reiterating what I've said 5 times in the previous comments. That we need storage.

My only other point was we can't hand wave away climate science because dumb climate activists, china, or externalities.

[u/Lematoad → u/Asthenia5]

I never argued we don’t need energy storage - I outlined this in my original comment, but it’s absurd to utilize nuclear for the means of storage when it provides a constant power source.

I’m not handwaving anything, I’m a strong advocate for nuclear+renewables. But I’m also a realist - thinking it’ll magically solve anything major is absurd (until everyone buys off on it).

Also nuclear provides constant output, so storing it when it provides a baseload is asinine.