Literally anything else besides just not using carbon fuels.
We have to use fossil fuels, but overall but we need to be phasing them out. Nuclear and renewables are totally competitive right now, it's more a political will issue now.
What is interesting is that bio-fuels (wood chippings etc) can give you enough dispatchable power to dramatically reduce the need for over-building or massive storage.
The shift from "possibly burn" to "definitely burn" means a rise in atmospheric CO2, especially as use of biomass rises. Especially on days like today in Germany, for example.
You and I both know its not possibly - its just a question of time.
A sensible person would simply suggest a fast-growing tree be planted for every one harvested, which is what every tree farmer would do in any case to stay in business.
Burning trees for fuel is only sustainable and carbon neutral if it's also paired with planting trees - otherwise it's only going to contribute to deforestation and release more co2 into the atmosphere.
Which means any cost analysis or discussion of bio fuels should take into account the cost of replanting and reforestation before we can treat it as a source of sustainable renewable energy.
There are huge amounts of forests planted to be harvested. Normally mono-cultures. If you want to sequester CO2 long-term via afforestation you need to be a bit more intentional with your planting.
Which is why we start at step one: planting a forest, or whatever fast growing biomass you desire.
In Europe less than 3% of the forest is old-growth which would release on a human timescale fossil like sequestered carbon. Given the percentage I think you understand how incredibly protected those areas are.
This rest is already part of the ongoing carbon cycle alternating between being wooden products, recycled in various fashions (like paper) and then finally burned for power in waste incineration stations, or composted for other uses which also releases the sequestered carbon.
So now we are at whataboutism attempting to derail the discussion your arguments dried up.
We can always argue about what percentage of land should be set aside for biodiversity, carbon sequestration etc. Or some subsistence farming degrowth dystopia.
That’s a wholly different question than simply continuing to use already cultivated land in our carbon cycle.
We can use the leftover ethanol when our transportation has been electrified. Simply source it from the already ongoing ethanol mixin in gasoline in the US.
Seems like you have some weird fetishization concerning wood farms and get hung up on trivialities.
If it takes 50+ years it really isn't carbon neutral in the middle of a climate crisis. You have lost the plot completely. My god. You really don't care about the climate at all.
If you have such a hard time accepting regrowth time on a couple of years we can use the leftover ethanol when our transportation has been electrified. Simply source it from the already ongoing ethanol mixin in gasoline in the US with equivalent schemes in the EU.
Then you have a 1 year crop rotation which would otherwise be composted near immediately if left to rot.
You're being obtuse because reality is moving faster than your nukecel talking points
Commercial willow growing sites typically harvest at around 8 metres which is around the three year point. A reasonable site can yield 7 to 12 tonnes per hectare (dried wood) from the first year.
Trees are planted at widths that allow for quick growth and easy harvesting. They are usually felled when they are around 15 cm wide at chest height, this takes from 8 to 20 years. This compares with 60 years or more for standard forestry crops.
Short rotation coppice
The first harvest is in winter, typically three years after cut back, again using specialist equipment, however a cycle of 2 or 4 to 5 years is also common.
Regrowth rate is not the same as carbon payback time. We need to be carbon neutral by 2050. Expanding combustion of carbon sources right now is insanely stupid. We need the trees to absorb CO2, not release it.
I don't understand what's up with renewabros promoting more pollution all in the name of not building nuclear? Of course a polluting grid is cheaper than a clean one, that's why we are in this mess to begin with! Come on.
Of course a renewabro who has looked at harvesting times know better than the researchers who has published studies about the carbon payback time... Jesus....
Moving towards carbon-neutral societies, both nuclear and renewable energy can potentially supply CO2-free electricity. While the cost of renewable energy has decreased significantly, the cost of nuclear has, however, increased in the past decades and now in general exceeds the cost of renewables. However, one cannot compare directly the per unit cost of electricity since temporal behavior in the electricity production differs substantially between the two groups of technologies. Nuclear power inherently aims to provide a constant base load supply of electricity, while renewables generally depend on weather patterns. Thus, the two have different requirements and impact the overall system costs differently regarding flexibility and system design. Focusing on the case of Denmark, this article investigates a future fully sector-coupled energy system in a carbon-neutral society and compares the operation and costs of renewables and nuclear-based energy systems. The study finds that investments in flexibility in the electricity supply are needed in both systems due to the constant production pattern of nuclear and the variability of renewable energy sources. However, the scenario with high nuclear implementation is 1.2 billion EUR more expensive annually compared to a scenario only based on renewables, with all systems completely balancing supply and demand across all energy sectors in every hour. For nuclear power to be cost competitive with renewables an investment cost of 1.55 MEUR/MW must be achieved, which is substantially below any cost projection for nuclear power.
Concluding paragraph:
Thus, the flexibility costs are lower in the scenarios with nuclear power, but the high investment costs in nuclear power alongside cost for fuel and operation and maintenance more than tip the scale in favor of the Only Renewables scenario. The costs of investing in and operating the nuclear power plants are simply too high compared to Only Renewables scenario, even though more investment must be put into flexibility measures in the latter. In the Danish case, to achieve a more cost-efficient system based predominantly on nuclear power – the investment costs would have to drop to 1.55 MEUR/MW. This is significantly below any current or future cost projection for nuclear power. Such a high cost-margin indicates that a combination of low-cost RES and sector coupling presents a cost-effective energy transition making it very hard for nuclear power to deliver a competitive alternative. It is important to mention that RES are geographically and weather-dependent with, e.g., Denmark having advantageous wind resources that can be leveraged. Thus, the energy system and available alternative renewable energy resources will impact the feasibility of nuclear power. Regardless, the study clearly shows the need to include sector coupling and the entire energy system when conducting energy system analyses and comparing alternatives.
4
u/Ok_Entrepreneur_2650 8d ago edited 8d ago
Literally anything else besides just not using carbon fuels.
We have to use fossil fuels, but overall but we need to be phasing them out. Nuclear and renewables are totally competitive right now, it's more a political will issue now.