this post was submitted on 02 Sep 2024
54 points (95.0% liked)

science

14791 readers
373 users here now

A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.

rule #1: be kind

<--- rules currently under construction, see current pinned post.

2024-11-11

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

top 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

Given that energy usage also increases about quadratically, this means that net CO2 emissions will roughly remain equal till 2060.

This is not a good graph.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago

I would have thought Iceland would be geothermal.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago

Regarding the map - an annual average cost is not so meaningful - in higher latitudes solar is not enough in winter - especially where it’s mostly cloudy during the first half of winter. Wind helps the balance but not everywhere, always. Of course, the sophisticated models behind the article know all that, the issue is simplistic presentation. I note "we assume hydrogen is used for seasonal storage" - this may be rather optimistic - how many dark months can that cover?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Uncertainties arise, however, over grid stability in a renewables-dominated power system, the availability of sufficient finance in underdeveloped economies, the capacity of supply chains and political resistance from regions that lose employment.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

that only addresses one of the issues above.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

then you see there are multiple reasons why coal may still be in use in 2060?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

"may" is maybe. Lets talk again about it in 36 years.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

not here to set a wager, I was just trying to help explain the authors' reasoning.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Indeed that's strange, and the flat slope in 2060 seems inconsistent with declared net-zero policies of China and even India. Russia has no such policy, but still strange to assume continuation of current government concepts there until 2060. (you can see the regional breakdown in supplem Fig 1. )

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

I'm guessing it has more to do with underdeveloped countries still relying on the simplicity of coal power.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

By levelized cost of just the energy. Taking into account energy storage at different renewable mixes makes it a little worse for intermittent source. All that to say, nuclear can still be useful and cheaper in some situations.