We really need to ramp up on nuclear. Either by building more traditional fission power plants, figuring out fusion, or capturing more of the energy from the giant, infinite nuclear reactor in the sky.
Unfortunately, there's no time left for nuclear (fission), so the best we can do is jump on the renewables bandwagon.
People have been making that argument for at least 30 years; renewables have always been just a few years away from being cheaper than coal and obsoleting nuclear. I remain skeptical.
And the battle for public opinion is lost.
I also question this. Countering FUD about nuclear power seems much more feasible than the Green New Deal approach of trying to ram through trillions in spending and substantial lifestyle changes.
Because coal costs money wind farms are cheaper to operate than a coal plant and have been for many years. So then the question becomes is it cheap enough to offset the cost of building and installing the turbines? And in many places the answer to that has been "Yes" too for some time now.
Energy producers in the sector can profitably build and run an onshore wind farm in the UK on the expectation of being paid about £50 per MWh which is a pretty typical market price. If it gets much cheaper it starts to compete with the open market price for coal ignoring the price of a power plant to burn it, and staff to run the plant.
Natural gas is more competitive, because that's more efficient (more electricity for the same price of fuel), but it also doesn't cause air pollution deaths (it just drives climate change because it's shoving CO2 into the air) unlike coal which causes huge amounts of death and disease.
Also: I've seen several reactions in this thread that express doubt that it can possibly be this bad, surely if burning coal emitted poisonous fumes that kill people we'd have noticed. But We did that's why that coal power plant has big chimneys, when people first built large coal powered machines they discovered the fumes are incredibly toxic and began choking people and so they... built taller chimneys to send the problem further away. But the problem wasn't gone, it was just dispersed. 5000 people get lung problems in the surrounding counties instead of five people choking to death in front of your eyes.
Ref: "New CSIRO, AEMO study confirms wind, solar and storage beat coal, gas and nuclear" https://reneweconomy.com.au/new-csiro-aemo-study-confirms-wi...
I've seen stories like that for at least a decade as well. If true, then how is climate change not a solved problem? Build lots of solar and wind, decommission all coal and natural gas (and apparently nuclear), profit! Yet according to the most prominent environmentalists, we need massive new spending and regulations, and we'll have to significantly change our lifestyles and give up on the idea of economic growth.
And the same people that complain about the power outages vote against the only reliable, carbon-free energy source we have now.
France was able to go from nothing to getting almost all of their electricity through nuclear in a couple of decades.
It is possible that we will be able to ramp up grid storage enough that we don't have to rely on natural gas to make up for the intermittent nature of renewables, but there is no guarantee that will happen.
Saying "it is too late" or "there is no time" for other options ignores the fact that we only have a fraction fo the grid storage we would need if we want to eliminate burning natural gas.
>...And the battle for public opinion is lost.
Even with a growing anti-science movement in the US, people are about evenly divided on nuclear power which is about a 5% improvement since 2016.
https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/US-public-opinion-ev...
Nuclear could provide far more power and improve air quality. The government could simply prioritize development of modern nuclear power without much worry about NIMBY pushback.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-nuclearpower-vogtle-i...
China is onlining 5-10 a year.
As someone in my 20s, I don’t think I know anyone who is opposed to nuclear. From my vantage it’s not clear why this would be considered a lost battle.
That's the impression I got. I don't know enough about the specifics to say if I agree with it or not. The opposition to nuclear was so effective in the 70's and 80's that they shutdown any further development on it. That's probably why you don't know anyone opposed to it. It's not really even an option anymore.
How will renewables keep people warm all winter? Perhaps we could hope for a planet-scale superconducting grid, or a cheap way to make methane from sunlight, but those seem less practical than nuclear, which already works. Though it'd be nice if we poured more investment into "walk away safe" reactor designs.