• MatthewToad43@climatejustice.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    @Ardubal @MattMastodon @BrianSmith950 @Pampa @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Sodis Well if we’re ruling out long term storage (iron-air batteries and hydrogen), maybe 30-40% nuclear, 80% renewables (intentionally over 100%), and a fair bit of lithium storage?

    Ultimately this is determined by how much we can build of each technology by the deadline (which ideally is 2030 or 2035). If we can scale up iron-air fast, that’d be great, but there’s a lot of uncertainty there. But this also applies to nuclear: How much new nuclear we can build by 2035 is probably quite limited. Whether hydrogen can be significant on that timescale, and whether leaks can be managed, is another big question.

    It’s worth trying all the plausible technologies (i.e. other than biofuels and fossil+CCS).

    PS “volatiles” *already* make up over 30% of the UK’s generated kWh. 😀 So I expect a higher figure.

    IMHO the only thing that matters more than the ecological impact of the transition is the *speed* of the transition. Because that determines total carbon emitted. And it determines the carbon intensity of the rest of the transition.

    • Svante@mastodon.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      @matthewtoad43 @MattMastodon @BrianSmith950 @Pampa @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Sodis

      Yes, but I’d like to add that we need to think about lifetimes.

      Let’s imagine having built all we need in 30 years, through sometimes extreme efforts.

      Current solar panels, wind turbines, and batteries have a lifetime of (a bit generously) 30 years. So we’d have to immediately start again with the entire effort just to keep it up. I’m worrying that this might not be … sustainable.

      • MatthewToad43@climatejustice.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        @Ardubal @MattMastodon @BrianSmith950 @Pampa @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Sodis Fortunately we will have time to work on that. There is plenty of existing renewable plant coming to the end of its service life for us to work on recycling.

        Also, hopefully longer term we move towards more rooftop solar rather than farm scale, though of course the amount of land used by solar is insignificant. Short term, farm scale is easy to install; long term, rooftop could be a requirement of construction.

        Just as important, once we reach 95%+ renewable electricity, the ecological cost of building new stuff, whether recycled or not, drops dramatically.

        Do we want to move towards more nuclear in the long run? Maybe so. On the other hand, the cost of renewables will continue to come down, and it’s reasonable to expect the same is true of storage.

          • MatthewToad43@climatejustice.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            @Ardubal @MattMastodon @BrianSmith950 @Pampa @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Sodis There is also the near-absolute worst case scenario where outdoor agriculture becomes untenable due to wildly inconsistent post-climate weather and the “land sharing vs land sparing” debate is forced down the land sparing route, i.e. if most food can only be grown in heated greenhouses, we’ll need vast amounts of energy. In that scenario we may well need more nuclear. But if it’s that bad that fast I have my doubts that civilisation can survive the transition; that sort of agriculture is very capital intensive as well as energy intensive, although it is higher yield and makes space for rewilding, and potentially could be our only option if things get really bad.

            PS I am not endorsing climate controlled indoor agriculture here. I don’t have a clear view on the land sharing vs land sparing thing. I know which side most “degrowth” people would take though.

          • Svante@mastodon.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            @matthewtoad43 @MattMastodon @BrianSmith950 @Pampa @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Sodis

            Sorry, but the term »degrowth« is a red flag for me.

            Sure, we are getting more efficient over time. That’s why even Germany’s emissions fell over the last two decades.

            But cutting power that is actually needed means poverty, and that will immediately end support for long-term thinking as well as severely limit our technical options.

            There are too many people for romantic visions of rural self-sufficiency.

            • MatthewToad43@climatejustice.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              @Ardubal @MattMastodon @BrianSmith950 @Pampa @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Sodis There are aspects of it that I disagree with.

              More to the point there are implications that I disagree with. Clearly there is a need for growth in large parts of the world, and even amongst the poor in my own country.

              On the other hand, there are many areas where demand reduction makes sense to speed up the transition. It is going to be many years before we have clean aviation, for instance. And a world with say 70% fewer cars in would be highly desirable for many good reasons.

              Both the transition and the climate crisis will cause much suffering, requiring redistribution. Much of the work that needs to be done on efficiency can only be practically funded by the state.

              And so you get degrowth: a reframing of politics and economics around a fair transition to sustainability.

              Though perhaps the term isn’t the ideal messaging.

              I posted a relatively popular rant about how primitivism and degrowth are two very different things a while back. Can’t find it right now.

              Anyway, thanks for the discussion. I hope that you’re right on a few things. 😀