• Rinox
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    5 months ago

    Can storage technology reach 100% coverage by 2050? Because that’s the target for net-0 afaik.

    If not, we should invest in something else to help us reach that goal, and Nuclear seems the most promising medium-term solution.

    • TonyTonyChopper@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months 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

      • Xavienth@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 months 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.