
Hello from 2050. We Avoided Worst of Climate Change – But Everything's Different - pweezy
https://time.com/5669022/climate-change-2050/
======
darepublic
Are wind and solar going to work? I always hear conflicting stories on this --
some like this article emphasizing that renewable energy costs are going down
and others that insist the tech isn't ready and we need something else
(usually nuclear)

~~~
NeedMoreTea
They already are quietly working, in places that haven't politically made coal
a necessity.

Europe is mostly progressing well, though most could go markedly faster, and
start hastening the decline of gas. There's a few going far too slow dumping
coal - Germany and Poland to name an obvious two.

UK and Ireland are particularly well placed for wind, much less so for solar.
UK has closed 99% of the mines and there's now fewer than 50 people working
coal. Pre-war peak was over a million, and about 250k miners in the seventies.
There'll be no coal generation by 2025. The little we still have is barely
used. Even gas generation looks like it may have started the decline.

Australia and USA have loads of coast, and masses of land well suited for wind
or solar. The thing neither lack is space and suitable sites, relevant to
where power is needed. China and Russia seem to have a fair bit too. They
apparently lack the will.

~~~
darepublic
You say it is quietly working, but can you name me a country where it IS
working. Where wind and solar are providing sufficient energy for our current
standards of living. Why are the critics of wind and solar (as outlined here
for instance:
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/08...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/08/we-
dont-need-solar-and-wind-to-save-the-climate-and-its-a-good-thing-
too/#627ec41ee4de)) wrong?

~~~
NeedMoreTea
From what I have seen of him, Shellenberger is a single issue nuclear
advocate. He has an awful lot promoting nuclear, and little else. The few
pieces I have read seem very sloppy on fact. I haven't the time to debunk and
cite point by point, but to try and give a little food for thought:

\+ He mentions storage _once,_ talking of 1931. No mention of interconnects,
dismissal of hydro, but no mention of pumped storage or batteries. Nothing
about the appropriate selection for the location, just "solar and wind". It's
an empty rant, not a credible case or decent article. There are decent
criticisms of renewables, but this is not one.

\+ No one in their right mind promotes 100% wind and solar only, without
storage, interconnect or base to cover intermittency. UK has, interconnects to
other countries - to export when there's excess and import when there's
deficit, and significant pumped storate, and some nuclear. Only those seeking
to disingenuously discredit talk of 100% wind and solar. The right answer is
the _correct_ mix of renewables for each country, taking account of latitude,
climate and surrounding interconnects, storage possibilities, geothermal
potential etc.

So no, I can't name a country with 100% solar and wind, without other sources
and storage as it's not a sane, or even proposed solution anywhere. There's
only a tiny number of states that hit 100% by renewables of all sources - the
world has been avoiding this climate thing for 50 years.

\+ Now you look to a smart and flexible grid. To cope with and capitalise on
many smaller often intermittent sources. When it's windy in the north, it
might be calm in the south. Albania is 100% renewable generation - mainly from
hydro. They still have excellent wind potential, and are building wind to
Interconnect into the European super-grid[1]. The chances of it being calm in
Albania _and_ UK at the same time are vanishingly slim. Those with an agenda
for other sources spin use of interconnect as failure. "oh, Denmark had to
import", etc. Yet it's one of the design goals. Which is why dozens of new
interconnects are proposed around Europe. USA would do similar but with state
level interconnects, along with Canada and Mexico.

\+ By 2025 UK will have, I think, 40GW of wind for a grid that requires
30-40GW. Intermittency of wind is covered by (at present) biomass, pumped
storage, solar, gas, hydro and interconnects. Right now mainly gas, but as
said we seem to have peaked and started on the decline. There might be a _very
unusual_ day or two where wind is such that 100% of a day's generation is
wind, and it will be meaningless but for a silly headline. Mainly it will be a
mix of sources, including that pumped storage most days (it pumps at low
demand, and fills peaking needs).

\+ There's _one_ nuclear plant going ahead in the UK from the six recently
proposed, planned _and heavily promoted and subsidised by government._ Value
for money is _atrocious._ Fifty+ years ago, nuclear was the clear fast route
to climate fix. Today, it's fool's gold, purely on cost. Hinkley point C is
still being built, has an agreed strike price of £92.50/MWh at 2012 prices,
locked in for 35 years, compared to _offshore_ wind that's just gone through
the latest auction with a strike price of £40/MWh. That's an insane premium
for nuclear baseload. They weren't supposed to hit parity until mid 2020s or
2030! Solar and wind are still plummeting, where will the disparity be in
2050? Build £22bn of pumped storage or add building insulation and other
demand reduction nationally, solar, LiIon battery or combined waste heat and
power. You could build a hundred GW or more of extra offshore wind for that...

That should be more than enough. :)

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_super_grid](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_super_grid)

------
throwtheclimate
I think this article is underestimating the future CO2 impact of Africa and
India.

~~~
platistocrates
Sure, but hope never really cares about statistics.

------
moonbug
seems naively optimistic

~~~
platistocrates
Better than being cynically apathetic.

------
agsilvio
Did we figure out the cause?

