8 ms·
Actually, renewable energy is, when you actually run the numbers in a sensible way, pretty cost effective: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037
by brrt 11y ago
Actually, renewable energy is, when you actually run the numbers in a sensible way, pretty cost effective: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378775312014759 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378775312... - this finds that with 90% solar/wind and modest amounts of storage, electricity would be cheaper in 2030 than it is today, and that the cheapest option is actually a vast overcapacity. There are plenty of flaws with that article, but still less than this post.
- lappa 11y agoJust to be clear, the article is saying that using solar power technology from 2030 would be more cost effective 90% of the time, not that using 90% solar energy today would be cheaper by the time we reach 2030.
- Retric 11y agoThey assumed electrochemical storage which is really expensive and invalidates there findings, renewables would be significantly cheaper than there suggesting.
- brrt 11y agoThey also assume a wide grid and overcapacity, which balances it out. And their storage capacity is minor, and they assume relatively cheap backup power. Like I said, there are plenty of things wrong with it, but it's nothing like what is wrong with the OP.
- steffenfrost 11y agoBattery cost are projected to drop significantly over the next 5 - 10 years.
- beat 11y agoBattery costs have been dropping radically for the past decade, and there's both aggressive startups (Tesla) and established giants investing heavily in the technology, which will continue to drive prices down.
- Retric 11y agoHydro is ~1/30th of battery costs. Nobody is prediction price swings on that scale.
- nl 11y agoIt doesn't invalidate their findings, it means they understated their case - thought I think that is what you are saying too. (Also, http://www.theretheyretheir.com/ http://www.theretheyretheir.com/. Not usually a grammar Nazi, but that's pretty hard to read)
- thomasahle 11y agoApparently, most nuclear power plants even produce less energy than if their area was instead covered by solar panels. Says Musk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-n6xJOFbvA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-n6xJOFbvA
- RealityVoid 11y agoI seriously doubt that claim.
- merb 11y agoit's true. somewhat. I mean the energy of the nuclear station stays constant. however the peak power of the solar panels will be higher. but I doubt that the solar panels will still be creating less energy over a longer period of time. unless you build both inside a desert and there you would have other problems like the sand which affects the lifetime of your panels, etc.. btw. i'm against nuclear and non renewable energy, however I think its hard to actually replace ever "bad" energy in the next 10-20 years. we will need a longer time for that. especially since building renewable energy plants fast isn't good for our environment either.
- adventured 11y agoThe peak power of solar panels is not higher today. The highest capacity US nuclear power plant can out-produce the best utility scale solar installation by 10 fold, with both at max capacity, on an equal amount of land.
- merb 11y agono with peak power i mean. full sun no cloud the whole day, etc. perfect things wheater for solar energy. However this barely (never) happens. so the energy of the panel changes throughout the day. however highest (possible) peak of solar could definitly be higher than a nuclear power plant (anywhere in the world) on an equal amount of land. nothing to do with today. just a "what would happen on a perfect day". peak vs peak. also peak of a nuclear power plant could be raised by human and solar panel peak is barely measurable, since there are a hugh amount of factors that could change it.
- david-given 11y agoJust a reminder that energy use and electricity use are not the same thing --- about 2/3 of all energy is used for heating and transport, and electricity can't be used for that. (Because it's too hard to store, and because the electrical grid simply can't transport that much.) Sure, solving renewable energy is a really valuable thing to do, but it's still only solving 1/3 of the problem.
- epistasis 11y agoThe electrical grid will be upgraded, it's not static. Heat is easy to switch to electric. Short transport will move to electric. Longer haul transport is more difficult, but liquid fuels can be generated from CO2 in the air or water (at somewhat large expense). However, if there is large amounts of overcapacity, then liquid fuel generation via electricity might become economical.
- danieltillett 11y agoIsn’t the solution to long haul transport electrification of the rail network? An alternative would be a swap and go battery network for the road system. The nice thing about a swap and go battery network is we have storage to even out demand and production.
- davedx 11y ago> 2/3 of all energy is used for heating and transport, and electricity can't be used for that Well, here in the Netherlands, the majority of the trains will soon (2018) be powered by 100% wind energy. 50% since this year. So it's categorically (and I would think obviously) incorrect to say "you can't use electricity for transport". http://www.ns.nl/over-ns/campagnes/maatschappelijk-betrokken/energie.html http://www.ns.nl/over-ns/campagnes/maatschappelijk-betrokken... Heating is another question entirely. You have more of a point there -- it's hard to find an alternative to natural gas for heating.
- Xylakant 11y ago> Heating is another question entirely. It's actually a comparatively easy problem to solve. Have a large boiler, heat that with electricity while you have an abundance of energy and keep it moderately well insulated. Drawing the heat off that is simple. Storing electricity for usage as electricity is the primary problem.