Screw it, I’ll do it. Their main assumption that we can have renewables for 80% of worlds grid by 2030 is bullshit and really leaves out beginning of cycle for all components of their 100% renewable future. 1. While they make mention of mining required for other fuel types they make no mention of mining and extraction techniques needed for lithium battery electric vehicles, battery storage, copper for transmission lines, and solar components for entire global transition. A single copper mine alone takes 5-10 years to open if we started today. 2. They make no mention of the current world production of solar in GW’s and how what they would need by 2030 is so beyond what the world is currently capable of. We have 971 GW installed currently around the world as of 2022 (they have 700ish on the chart below but that was of 2020) and we produce annually around 200GW a year (I’ve seen estimates of 160-200 in 2021). For Utility scale PV alone they estimate it requires 10,000GW and if you include the 13,000GW for commercial and residential roofs they estimate a required 23,000GW total when we produce annually 200GW that’s been growing at rate of +/- 30GW a year recently. Most (80-90%) of polysilicon production is done in China, why?, because they use cheap coal to energize their polysilicon plants and whose emissions are not mentioned in this report. That’s why emphasizing polysilicon plants in the US where we are fortunate to have cheap natural gas due to the fracking boom of the 2010’s would not only be better for national security, job creation, but it also reduces emissions related to production. None of this discusses BEV car production or their use hydrogen fuel cell powered transportation (which doesn’t exist at scale in any form), or their demand projections or demand reduction projections. This is why it annoys me when people say nuclear takes too long without realizing renewables would take just as long. And lastly people see Stanford and say see Stanford says it can be done. But Stanford is full of humans with their own biases, it’s like everyone forgot of Jay Bhattacharya or Steven Leavitt during the COVID response.
Why? I get cattle ranchers in Brazil but as far as the US cattle ranchers go they are pretty helpful especially for reducing fire threat impacts. maybe the US shouldn’t have allowed 40 million people to live off of one river without supplementing it with desalinization or restricting population growth in those regions.
The massive fires are mostly forest fires or in environments cows have nothing to do with. The solution to solving those problems isn't grazing.
Im guessing by your fan of you are an east coaster and unfamiliar with the west, so I'll break down your statement above here: in environments cows have nothing to do with. In the West cattle are usually brought up on open ranges even in meadows up in the mountains. Fires typically start in light flashy fuels like grass and transition in to heavier fuels, grass though is the most common incipient fuel bed. massive fires are mostly forest fires No, fires vary by fuel type, a fire could be in the Los Padres National forest but the fuel type of that region is predominantly chaparral or grassy oak woodland. No matter the fuel type you can still have large fires. solution to solving those problems isn't grazing Absolutely the problem of large wildfires in the west is not going to be solved by just grazing, nor is that a statement I ever made. That would be a silly statement to make, these fires are an intricate problem that will need several different responses in order to reduce severity. The statement I made is grazing reduces light flashy fuel loading, that in turn creates a slower spreading fire that is less impactful to surrounding vegetation and humans. By it being a slower spreading fire it also gives initial attack resources responding to that fire help in eventually catching the fire.
That truck barreling through there and its subsequent wake raised the flood damage from $1 billion to $2 billion
Encouraging. https://www.powermag.com/nrc-moves-to-issue-final-design-certification-for-nuscale-nuclear-module/
This was quietly announced last week too. https://www.ans.org/news/article-4152/holtec-defines-74b-smr-build-plan-inks-agreement-with-entergy/
I may have mentioned it in here before but As someone who loves golf and lives in AZ, it’s insane the amount of golf courses around here. The Phoenix area alone has over 150. Politicians have tried to get them to reduce their water consumption by single digit percentages. And golf course associations have shot them down.
When I managed a course in California, just going around and readjusting sprinkler heads by my cart paths reduced water usage by more than double required from the Public Utility District for the year. It’s insane how wasteful golf is. No wonder it’s a dying industry.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...astate-california-new-study-says/10308979002/ has this been discussed?
Oh hell yes, humans just keep on posting Ws against mother nature… https://www.euronews.com/green/amp/...to-drink-due-to-forever-chemicals-study-finds
Since we have been taking a lot about water in this thread recently: Gavin unveiled his plan for California here is the direct link to his proposal https://resources.ca.gov/-/media/CN...Water-Resilience/CA-Water-Supply-Strategy.pdf nice to see desal in there
I'm curious for those who know about desalination. Are the processing facilities not a massive threat to marine life? And/or a power-costly operation that presumably doesn't run on clean fuel? I've seen some of those oceanic turbine farms proposed but just wondering about the brass tacks of these things.
the biggest issue with it comes from all the brine that's produced and is then pumped back into the ocean which jacks the salt levels up and shreds the ecosystem on the ocean floor. there have been steady improvements over the years on the brine production and the energy required to sustain the desal plants (rly need to make them nuclear), but i don't think we're at the place yet where large scale production of desal plants is a feasible option. i forget who it was, maybe jplaYa, who does a ton of work with nuclear facilities so he can probably explain how long it takes to develop a nuclear plant that can power something like this, but it wouldn't be a terrible idea to start planning for more plants to be developed. it's probably a 5-10 year development to get a desal plant built and operational, so maybe we'll have better advancements in brine production and energy needs by the time they're operational.
I'm already fully sold on nuke power. Build the nukes, tear out the dams, make ocean water tasty again, ????, yeah.
i blame all those dirty hippies in the 80s and their anti-nuclear propaganda. i love our big beautiful nuclear power granted, Fukushima did nothing to combat that anti-nuclear sentiment, but it's definitely the best option long term. i also am completely unbiased being in the waste world as nuclear waste is definitely not an incredibly profitable stream to manage
compare the impact of those to destroying every river, the hideousness of windmill and solar farms, the impact of coal Ops, etc
between this and private jet usage from celebrities releasing ungodly amount of pollutants, we may just have to kill them all
Iron Mickey this is a comment I posted about Desal a couple pages back with a link to a study done by the University of Santa Cruz.
Power them by nukes, hopefully SMR's would be the ideal solution. As for threat to marine life see post above.
This idea that 5-10 years is a long time as a hinderance to build nukes is frustrating. We have produced 900GW of solar world wide to date over decades. We are at a current run rate production of I'll be generous 200 GW annually adding at a +/- 30 GW pace. Using that Stanford study above said we need 23,000 GW of solar globally. There is no world where solar+wind does not take just as long as nuclear.
I didn’t mean it to come across that I thought it shouldn’t be done bc it takes so long to build. I’m all for more plants
So, let’s say it takes just as long…you’re still gonna go with the option that has the potential to turn a region into a wasteland?