579
submitted 1 week ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] [email protected] 11 points 1 week ago

If there was enough funding or political backing anything could get done by 2050. That's a huge amount of time. Any time someone mentions a climate goalpost like that they are pulling the cloth over your eyes

[-] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago

We needed to get this shit done 10 years ago. Any delay in removing all fossil fuel emissions now is just a matter of how bad we want climate change to get, rather than preventing it. Net zero by 2050 is a fucking eternity away and is a shit goal, and all the projections that get us on track to 1.5 °C of warming have us extensively using carbon capture which is entirely unrealistic.

Existing nuclear plants in France work, they can load follow to some degree, and renewables can make up the difference with minimal energy storage. But at a certain point you have to stop investing in renewables if you have minimal energy storage and your electricity solution is working.

I am going to emphasize that last part: IF you can't get enough energy storage, and IF your energy mix is fine, you must stop investment in renewable installations. Without enough storage, the baseload+peak paradigm works, you just have to regulate it.

this post was submitted on 18 Jun 2024
579 points (98.8% liked)

World News

31441 readers
989 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS