Slashdot Mirror

See also https://www.electricitymap.org... for realtime CO2 intensity of electricity production across a big chunk of the world... e.g. right now (morning peak), the UK's running on 28% gas, 24% nuclear, 19% wind, 8% coal, 4% solar.

Here's a nice live map. Of course the values may vary depending on time.

That is a good map. Thanks. It demonstrated my points as well. The large countries with low CO2 intensity (Sweden and France) have significant nuclear capacity. Both countries also have low energy prices.

Here's a nice live map. Of course the values may vary depending on time.

Obligatory link back to reality. Compare the "failed" nuclear in places like France, Sweden and Ontario to the "renewable" utopia of Germany. Along with carbon intensity, don't forget to check prices.

Green ideology is the worst impediment to effective decarbonization. Please don't fund the big green groups that favor one brand of clean energy over another, and are actively working to kill large sources of clean energy.

The $2.5 trillion reason we can’t rely on batteries to clean up the grid.

Islands typically have much higher electricity prices and small demands, and still, none have successfully transitioned to wind and solar. When are people going to wake up and look at the evidence? All over the world, aggressive deployment of renewables has a terrible record in actually offsetting carbon emissions. The genuinely green nations are using a combination of nuclear and/or hydro.

BTW, here is another nice map of things.
This shows g co2 / kwh. Sadly, not enough is shown, but still useful. For example, CA, AZ, WA, and NY is where America makes our solar panels. AZ is not on it, but considering that 80% of their electricity comes from nuclear, I would suspect that they are pretty good.
WA is at 30 g / kwh
NY is at 149
CA is at 226

Over in Europe, I believe that the majority of solar is done in Germany, which is at 346 g/kwh

Texas is primarily powered by natural gas and coal, with a bit of highly subsidized wind.

I applaud the good link, that's an interesting map. Tiny opposition to your point is it does mention TX is #1 in wind.

However, while gas+wind may reduce emissions some, it is incapable of scaling to replace fossil, and will forever be dependent on it.

True. This is probably just a difference on emphasis - I'd emphasize that it can be minimized. I'm also a proponent of nuclear power, but that's a different convo.

The cost of wind today is deceptively low because it pushes the subsidies and required backup generation into another column. No one is suggesting coal as the alternative; just be realistic about expectations. Nor does most of the world have such conveniently co-located wind+gas resources.

I do agree, we should be realistic. I bring up Germany, and the real results of them leading the solar industry in the 90's, and it rocking their stock market. Solar was profitable for them, not because it saved costs of electricity generation, but because they developed technology and sold it. A lot of your solar power converters are still German. I say real estate boom because all of a sudden, the roof Germans already owned made their house more valuable, almost instantly. There are so many secondary effects of green policy that actually make it profitable in the long run. Sustainable practices cost less than non-sustainable ones, is that not a realistic statement? How much money would we save if there was less air pollution and asthma occurrence dropped? Lung cancer. I often wonder what pollution has to do with my stupid allergies. It's hard to imagine the costs of the worst possible effects of this ocean current stuff.

Greens making money isn't the goal; decarbonization is. Germany provides a fine example of how expending enormous resources building renewables is not making effective progress toward this goal.

Again, that link is an impressive map. I have to admit it's taking me a while to absorb all the info in it. But why can't there be 2 goals? Make money and save the planet? If the goal is decarbonization, it's much easier to accomplish the goal if we make it profitable. Germany proved it can be done. They did it with solar, and this is a country that gets as little sun as Portland. Yes they invested some money and worked hard, but they ended up with a smarter grid than us, and some days they have to pay everyone on the gird to use electricity. The horror.

Texas is primarily powered by natural gas and coal, with a bit of highly subsidized wind. However, while gas+wind may reduce emissions some, it is incapable of scaling to replace fossil, and will forever be dependent on it. The cost of wind today is deceptively low because it pushes the subsidies and required backup generation into another column. No one is suggesting coal as the alternative; just be realistic about expectations. Nor does most of the world have such conveniently co-located wind+gas resources.

Greens making money isn't the goal; decarbonization is. Germany provides a fine example of how expending enormous resources building renewables is not making effective progress toward this goal.

A laudable goal, which can only be achieved with clean energy cheaper fossil. Rich nations pouring subsidies into renewables following the example of Germany, only end up with very costly energy and still can't close coal. (40% coal now; also see their neighbors for how decarbonization can be done right.)

For the developing world where most growth is occurring, clean energy needs to be genuinely cheaper than fossil without any subsidy.

I have little doubt that most climate scientists are acting in good faith, but the many zealots hawking "solutions" to the problem are not doing the cause any favors. Their primary goal appears to be killing nuclear plants, and inhibiting growth of this invaluable zero-carbon energy source. Working to replace nuclear with gas and limit our available tools exposes the hypocrisy of these self-styled "environmentalists", and calls into question their motivations.

They keep the focus on installing "renewable" capacity, and selling us on the 100% "renewable" dream; never on their progress in lowering carbon emissions, which has been uninspiring. We should be objectively examining the results of our efforts, and not asking "can it be done", but "what is the most effective strategy". Few places have sustained large-scale efforts, but the facts speak for themselves. See the real-time electric power and carbon intensity of Germany, France, Ontario, and Sweden.

I have little doubt that most climate scientists are acting in good faith, but the many zealots hawking "solutions" to the problem are not doing the cause any favors. Their primary goal appears to be killing nuclear plants, and inhibiting growth of this invaluable zero-carbon energy source. Working to replace nuclear with gas and limit our available tools exposes the hypocrisy of these self-styled "environmentalists", and calls into question their motivations.

They keep the focus on installing "renewable" capacity, and selling us on the 100% "renewable" dream; never on their progress in lowering carbon emissions, which has been uninspiring. We should be objectively examining the results of our efforts, and not asking "can it be done", but "what is the most effective strategy". Few places have sustained large-scale efforts, but the facts speak for themselves. See the real-time electric power and carbon intensity of Germany, France, Ontario, and Sweden.

I have little doubt that most climate scientists are acting in good faith, but the many zealots hawking "solutions" to the problem are not doing the cause any favors. Their primary goal appears to be killing nuclear plants, and inhibiting growth of this invaluable zero-carbon energy source. Working to replace nuclear with gas and limit our available tools exposes the hypocrisy of these self-styled "environmentalists", and calls into question their motivations.

They keep the focus on installing "renewable" capacity, and selling us on the 100% "renewable" dream; never on their progress in lowering carbon emissions, which has been uninspiring. We should be objectively examining the results of our efforts, and not asking "can it be done", but "what is the most effective strategy". Few places have sustained large-scale efforts, but the facts speak for themselves. See the real-time electric power and carbon intensity of Germany, France, Ontario, and Sweden.

I have little doubt that most climate scientists are acting in good faith, but the many zealots hawking "solutions" to the problem are not doing the cause any favors. Their primary goal appears to be killing nuclear plants, and inhibiting growth of this invaluable zero-carbon energy source. Working to replace nuclear with gas and limit our available tools exposes the hypocrisy of these self-styled "environmentalists", and calls into question their motivations.

They keep the focus on installing "renewable" capacity, and selling us on the 100% "renewable" dream; never on their progress in lowering carbon emissions, which has been uninspiring. We should be objectively examining the results of our efforts, and not asking "can it be done", but "what is the most effective strategy". Few places have sustained large-scale efforts, but the facts speak for themselves. See the real-time electric power and carbon intensity of Germany, France, Ontario, and Sweden.

no form of fission is safe. That's not even a debate.

Issuing closeout statements like that is usually the first indication that the facts are not on your side, and you are incapable of an honest debate. What typically follows is 100% bullshit intended to drown out facts, and there is no exception in this case.

If you want to be pedantic, nothing is safe; but nuclear is objectively the safest source of energy available to humanity at present. The hysteria that your kind have cultivated around nuclear energy has ruined the economics in many places, but that is not a fault of the technology, and can be addressed. With rational regulation, nuclear could be the most economically efficient option, which follows directly from it being the most resource efficient option, by no small margin.

Where exactly have renewables been shown to fill a substantial portion of clean energy? (excluding hydro and biomass, which respectively can't and shouldn't be scaled) Germany, where they are now sourcing 54% of their electricity from combustion of mostly coal, and emitting 464gCO2/kWh? Applaud their rate of renewables installation if you must, but the effectiveness of their decarbonization strategy has been pitiful, very expensive, and set to derailing their climate targets.

Here, have some facts you ignorant tool. Real time electric power and carbon intensity for France and Germany. As of now:

Germany at 479g carbon intensity, with power from 49% coal/gas, 18% from wind/solar, 13% nuclear, 6% hydro.

France at 90g carbon intensity, with power from 60% nuclear, 14% hydro, 12% gas/coal, and 9% wind/solar.

Here, have some facts you ignorant tool. Real time electric power and carbon intensity for France and Germany. As of now:

Germany at 479g carbon intensity, with power from 49% coal/gas, 18% from wind/solar, 13% nuclear, 6% hydro.

France at 90g carbon intensity, with power from 60% nuclear, 14% hydro, 12% gas/coal, and 9% wind/solar.

This is what happens when misinformed policy makers mandate unworkable "solutions". The primary goal should have been decreasing emissions from the start, with sound policy to achieve that goal.

For all of their investment in wind, Denmark still isn't very green. Click on the actual green countries to see what they have in common.

Actually we're doing better than a lot of Europe at the moment. Presently we're doing better than Germany https://www.electricitymap.org...

massive amounts of taxpayer subsidy

Taxpayer subsidies are bad? Every significant form of renewable energy has been and/or is being supported by all manner of subsidy. Somehow it's only a problem for nuclear/fossil fuels...

And you're badly wrong about the cost of nuclear power. France, for instance, pays less for electricity than every other major European economy because of it's large and well operated nuclear energy system [1]. France also emits far less carbon than its neighbors; have a look at the live map: https://www.electricitymap.org...

[1] http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/s... c/KWh 2016: France: 0.089 Germany: 0.149 UK: 0.128

Yeah, I wouldn't call a country shutting down nuclear power plants and building new coal plants "progressive".

If you look here : https://www.electricitymap.org... you'll see that most of the times, Germany is not that good. Right now it is at 414 gCO2/kWh, which is worse than the US (388) and 6 times worse than France (66). Ontario, Sweden and Norway are even better but they have the advantage of a high hydro capacity. What all the good players have in common : nuclear power of course.

And those numbers don't even take into account another element of Germany's anti-nuke idiocy: the focus on renewables has created very high electricity prices in Germany, which has contributed greatly to Germany lagging behind the rest of the rich world in adopting electric vehicles. Meanwhile, nuclear-powered France (with electricity prices half of Germany's) is the hottest market in Europe for EVs. EVs are sold in small enough numbers everywhere that they don't yet make a significant difference in carbon emissions, but the electrification of transport is still a very important issue now, because as the emissions of industry and electricity generation fall transportation threatens to become the primary emitter, and the conversion of millions of privately-owned vehicles is going to take a great deal of time. It's important to push the transition now.

Yeah, I wouldn't call a country shutting down nuclear power plants and building new coal plants "progressive".

If you look here : https://www.electricitymap.org... you'll see that most of the times, Germany is not that good. Right now it is at 414 gCO2/kWh, which is worse than the US (388) and 6 times worse than France (66). Ontario, Sweden and Norway are even better but they have the advantage of a high hydro capacity.
What all the good players have in common : nuclear power of course.