81–90 of 94 posts
I never understood how a country like Vietnam could afford nuclear powerplants when in Europe costs of building new ones skyrocket to 10 billion euro.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sssshhh. You'll ruin the narrative. It seems to me that the easiest way for a Germany to cut on energy needs is simply by having less people live there. I expect they would have been at negative population growth without shipping in a scad of people.
Well duh, the only other ways are “be more energy efficient” (hard because they’re already good at that) or “get everyone to do less” (I’d approve of that, but most people don’t seem to). Likewise, the cost of less people living there (or in any defined region) is less taxpayers, less people making stuff, and less people supplying stuff.
In any case, what really matters is the per capita wealth, not total.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also we shouldn't forget we're talking about Vietnam. A country that is expected to follow slower (because it's not technologically advanced like some European countries or North America). Them having any kind of goal is a good sign, even though it might not be very ambitious in our understanding. Goals can be adjusted.
Actually I'd expect developing nations to be the first in adopting a clean energy grid. They have massively rising demand, so they're building new power plants all the time and don't have vested interests trying to milk every penny out of old coal plants. They also benefit from technological advances that countries with aging power infrastructure can't take advantage of. It's not like they're forced to re-live the in…
No matter what tech is used, it'll be obsolete at some point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well duh, the only other ways are “be more energy efficient” (hard because they’re already good at that) or “get everyone to do less” (I’d approve of that, but most people don’t seem to). Likewise, the cost of less people living there (or in any defined region) is less taxpayers, less people making stuff, and less people supplying stuff.
I can't say that an economic model built on continuous population growth makes any sense. The piper will get paid at some point. Even the current notion of driving down the average age via mass immigration will only last so long. In any case, what really matters is the per capita wealth, not total.
(On the other hand, stupidity and political short-term-ism are exactly why we now have problems with loss of biodiversity, antibiotic resistance, a disrupted nitrogen cycle, phosphorus waste, a quarter of the CO2 in our air being artificial, boom-and-bust economic cycles, etc.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually I'd expect developing nations to be the first in adopting a clean energy grid. They have massively rising demand, so they're building new power plants all the time and don't have vested interests trying to milk every penny out of old coal plants. They also benefit from technological advances that countries with aging power infrastructure can't take advantage of. It's not like they're forced to re-live the in…
Developing nations are generally poor compared to developed countries (duh). So they might not be able to afford energy sources with high upfront costs like nuclear, solar, or wind. If you ignore externalities, coal is likely the cheapest, unfortunately. This is exactly what DIDN'T happen with, say, telecom networks. Developing countries skipped directly to mobile telecom, allowing them to save a lot of money by avoi…
Really not sure why people parrot these falsehoods that are easily proven wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The goal is zero emissions, as soon as possible. The IPCC assumes we’ll have to have negative emissions, into the indefinite future.
The goal is not a certain level of emissions, as you say - negative emissions would be desirable. A 50% reduction will be a great improvement, a 90% reduction will be almost as good as 100%. 110% even better... Our task is to reduce emissions as fast as possible. But what is "possible" still entails economic, environmental and safety limitations and priorities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well that’s interesting, because University of Minnesota ran simulations with MISO that stated batteries and solar would outperform a gas peaker on that grid financially in the next few years. http://energytransition.umn.edu/modernizing-minnesotas-grid-...
My state's power companies all run solar and wind installations, and are incredibly heavily regulated, and all charge extra if you want power from them. Without a doubt wind and solar cost more in my southern state than Nat-Gas. Solar is a complete waste as other providers require contracts to stay available to pick up the slack on cloudy days, and that price is directly accountable against the solar energy making it…
https://www.clarionledger.com/story/opinion/columnists/2018/...
Sounds like a sound decision, plenty of sun in Viet Nam, all year long.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well that’s interesting, because University of Minnesota ran simulations with MISO that stated batteries and solar would outperform a gas peaker on that grid financially in the next few years. http://energytransition.umn.edu/modernizing-minnesotas-grid-...
My state's power companies all run solar and wind installations, and are incredibly heavily regulated, and all charge extra if you want power from them. Without a doubt wind and solar cost more in my southern state than Nat-Gas. Solar is a complete waste as other providers require contracts to stay available to pick up the slack on cloudy days, and that price is directly accountable against the solar energy making it…