Hacker News Reader

Comment by wronglyprepaid | Hacker News Reader

Well this is not true because Biden has already started transitioning the US off fossil fuels without any long-duration energy storage and he is doing it in a historically inclusive manner[1].

[1]: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases...

View on HN

We will need it later, you can't go 100% 0 carbon without it. Just running peaker generators, figuring out how to heat/cool houses, charge EVs when there is surplus, ... are all cheaper alternatives to storage, but won't cover everything

> We will need it later, you can't go 100% 0 carbon without it.

I think this is just what capitalist is trying to make people believe, the economy will adapt and jobs are already booming as the unemployment in US is at a historic low which shows just how historically strong the economy is [1].

[1]: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases...

You are insufferably dense. This has nothing to do with economy, inclusivity or any other BS from the POTUS website. Energy production has to be ramped up and down to match utilization in order to keep the grid stable. That is much more difficult to do with renewables. You can't just turn up the wind speed to make turbines spin faster. I know this may be surprising, but when the grid voltage drops too much and fries everybody's electronics, people tend to get very pissed (in a very universally inclusive manner).

They're not arguing it's an economic harm to decarbonize, they're pointing out that it cannot physically be done, at all, without some way of storing energy.

This is needed because otherwise you'd only get energy when the wind is blowing and the sun is shining. This is especially true if you do not classify nuclear energy as green energy, but even with nuclear providing baseload generation you would want energy storage to truly take advantage of the energy that renewable sources can provide.

> They're not arguing it's an economic harm to decarbonize, they're pointing out that it cannot physically be done, at all, without some way of storing energy.

If this was true why is the US economy doing so well in the transition off carbon based fuels while being the most inclusive in history[1]?

> This is especially true if you do not classify nuclear energy as green energy

But nuclear is not green [2], and labelling it as such is just green washing.

[1]: https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/written-materials/2022/01/20/...

[2]: https://edition.cnn.com/2022/07/06/world/eu-votes-natural-ga...

> If this was true why is the US economy doing so well in the transition off carbon based fuels while being the most inclusive in history[1]?

Because we have not gotten to the point where storage, and particularly long term storage, would make sense to build. I mean, why synthesize a chemical fuel when we're still burning so much natural fuel?

Long term storage is a last 10-20% thing.

I honestly do not understand this push to have 'inclusive energy policy'. WTF. The point is a net carbon reduction. If poor people need dirty energy while rich people subsidize the technology development WHO CARES.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com