these people are ignoring science, because a 100% renewable energy economy is impossible by the laws of physics

there is no way around classic power plants providing the baseload and then some 24/7/365

It had to be done.

Hard to find a dumber statement than "renewable energy is impossible by the laws of physics"

Nuclear is exceptionally good for baseline production and wind + solar are both maximal when peak need is around.

The reason we can't have full renewable yet is because we don't have strong storage solutions implemented, but we'll get there pretty soon.

Unless and until we get to the point where we can store renewables in sufficient quantity, we need a bridge technology which produces little carbon and is able to provide base load. Nuclear is the only such technology that we have right now.
By the way, I'm not saying that we should construct masses of new nuclear power plants, just that the existing ones should be kept online and perhaps be extended by new blocks.



EXACTLY, thank you!

The political left, however, is increasingly selling their political demands under the banner of "science demands that we do X".
They insinuate that science demands us to radically change our behavior, consumption, economy and society to tackle climate change.
They insinuate that science demands us to wear masks and use lockdowns to fight covid.

The "listen to the science"-slogan seeks to suppress the discussion of political or technological alternatives to the liberal orthodoxy and frame it in such a way that anyone who disagrees is automatically disparaged as an ignorant, anti-intellectual redneck.
Normally, I should be surprised that you, a guy who prides himself on being a scientist, don't seem to be bothered in the slightest when folks like Greta and her crew instrumentalize science for their political demands...

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Oct 8 2021 04:31pm

thats what my statement was all about, its a fact and not an argument

no, we wont find storage solutions "pretty soon" if at all, electricity is about producing it when needed

feel free to tell me how aluminium smelters and the like are supposed to run on storages, batteries the size of the empire state building are empty in a heartbeat on a cold january day and the overcapacity for sufficient chemical storage will probably never exist

the joke is on you buddy, learn basic laws of electricity and energy first

Our existing infrastructure for natural gas (pipelines, storages, ships) could probably be repurposed to store hydrogen and be enough to solve this issue. The problem with this approach is that it would require us to produce insane amounts of hydrogen in the first place, which, given the very bad efficiency of the conversion from power to hydrogen, would require completely unrealistic amounts of renewable energy.

Sure, if you take it literally. But very few people think science actually says things.

They are using it as shorthand for "the evidence of harm to not do this so far outweighs the cost of doing it that there's no reasonable debate to be had about whether we should do it".

We don't even really need to change our current infrastructure. We need to produce a ridiculous amount of renewable energy and start sucking CO2 from the atmosphere to make gas. We have the technology now, but it's not very efficient, so we just need to make a crap load of nuclear plants, solar plants, wind farms, etc.

I think a lot of it comes down to conservatives attack the actual science as opposed to the policy. Just take a look at what many on the right say: "global warming doesn't exist," "the vaccine doesn't work," etc. Perhaps if conservatives came up with an actual policy to address the problem or simply said "we don't believe this is an issue," the talking point would go away. You reap what you sow.

All fine and well. The problem is just that there never was this alleged scientific evidence for the claim that the "Greta agenda" (we can only deal with climate change by going for an almost instant decarbonization and a radical, permanent reduction in our living standard/consumption) or covid lockdowns are without debate-worthy alternatives - yet that's how the proponents of these policies purported the state of the scientific debate on these issues to be. They boldly alleged that their policies were "settled science/scientific consensus" and without alternatives although that is clearly not the case.

This cooptation of science for a political agenda wouldn't be so bad if it was carried out by minor, fringe groups - but what we saw over the past 2.5 years was state actors, the media and even a lot of scientists happily joining in.




Fair enough. If the "intellectual right"... or let's rather call it the "non-anti-intellectual right" hadn't stood by and remained silent for decades while their ideological allies from the anti-intellectual faction of the right spouted all this nonsense, then they would have more credibility pushing back against the liberal cooptation of science. Classical case of "careful who you dine with".

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Oct 8 2021 06:24pm