off topic post, hidden by What Exit?
No, I’ve already explained what a sane ‘transition’ would look like:
- More natural gas and more fracking, as an interim measure because renewables rely on natural gas to make them work.
- MUCH more nuclear power
- phaseout of fossil fuels as renewables take their place, and not before. And by ‘taking their place’ that means if you are going to shut down baseload power like coal plants you will either need some form of storage, or you need to ramp up nuclear. Or, you need WAY more natural gas.
- Places that have great solar conditions should do more of that. Places with hydro capacity should develop more hydro. All of the above should be the watchphrase now.
- At no point should you put yourself in a position where your grid can crash if the wind doesn’t blow while the sun isn’t shining. Because that happens a lot.
As of today, we should have MORE natural gas than we had before the transition. We should have less coal than we do now, and we should be building lots of nuclear plants.
Natural gas gets phased out when we have a solution for load-following AND the capacity to replace natural gas. But natural gas was always the obvious ‘transition’ fuel. It has half the CO2 of coal, can be ramped up and down quickly, and it’s cheap.
WIthout China and Russia and India onboard, our solution has to make energy MORE abundant and CHEAPER. Otherwise, heavy industry will just move to those countries, and they will find they have a huge advantage over us - so long as they keep burning fossil fuels.
I have been consistant on this for years and years. But if you want to continue this, start another global warming or energy thread. This has strayed away from the war in Ukraine
.