4 ms·

Post nytimes on hackernews...hmmf The problem set was piss in terms of intelligence had a false assumption of a rational/intelligence dichotomy. Of course it's

Post nytimes on hackernews...hmmf The problem set was piss in terms of intelligence had a false assumption of a rational/intelligence dichotomy. Of course it's more likely that she is a bankteller than a bankteller plus (insert whatever). This is probability theory 101. But hey, it is nytimes you're reading so what would one expect anyway. I was more thinking in these lines: How rational is it for someone to be outspoken against nuclear energy when there hardly exist any real valid renewable alternative to substitute that energy source to begin with? Do it like Germany and rely on the importation of oil from Russia?

paulddraper 10y ago
> there hardly exist any real valid renewable alternative Most people don't know that. Exaggerations like http://thesolutionsproject.org/ http://thesolutionsproject.org/ make them think that wind/solar/tidal could put more than a little dent in energy.
- sinxoveretothex 10y ago
  It is possible, at least in principle, to transition to only using solar for example. Musk gave the example, when unveiling the Powerwall, that to power the whole of the US would only require the whole Texas Panhandle to be covered in panels 25% efficient. I remember doing the calculation even with the current 15% efficiency and it came out that if each person has something like 9 m^2 of solar panels on their roof, the whole energy demand of the US is covered. Obviously, that's a shit ton of panels and batteries and we can't just pack them all on the Panhandle for example and it's entirely possible that nuclear is much cheaper (I don't know where to get the numbers to run this calculation). But it is possible. I think a better criticism is that it's too risky and too slow an avenue in comparison to the risk of climate change
  - paulddraper 10y ago
    > the whole of the US would only require the whole Texas Panhandle to be covered in panels 25% efficient Are we building Dyson spheres next? I believe largish orders of mass-market solar panels (currently ~15% efficient, as you mentioned) are about $10/sq ft, but let's make that $5 for sake of argument. So $218k for one acre. The Texas Panhandle is 16.6 million acres. So assuming solar becomes nearly twice as efficient for half the cost, the solar panels alone for this venture would be $3.6 trillion. I hesitate to guess what construction, installation, batteries, or infrastructure for 16 million acres would add. --- So I concede that given best-case economics, impractical funding, and technology that doesn't exist, it could perhaps be done. More of a XKCD "What If?" scenario than a serious solution.
    - Dylan16807 10y ago
      That price is not unreasonable. The US consumes roughly 5 trillion kWh every year. At a low-end estimate of 10 cents per kWh we have a 15 trillion dollar budget to build a facility that lasts 30 years. If we prioritize the environment over cheap power, we could double or triple that budget (and if people use less power in response to higher prices, that makes our job even easier). Obviously it would take a while to ramp up production, but that's not hard, just slow.
    - sinxoveretothex 10y ago
      3.6 trillions is a lot of money if you intend to bulk buy all of it at once today, but comparatively less over, say, 10 years. US GDP is around 18 trillion/year, 2% of the GDP is a lot, but it's certainly realizable. Besides, it is somewhat meaningless to look at the price of solar panels without a reference. As I stated above, I have no idea how to estimate the cost of nuclear. I also don't know if the new kind of reactor (like traveling wave reactors) are anything more than a concept (it seems like breeder reactors are pretty much at the level of prototypes today). I think the important point is what the price difference is rather than whether a one-time purchase of solar panels would cost an amount to large to fit in one's wallet.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - paulddraper 10y ago
        $3.6 trillion is only a portion of just the materials cost. It's like the price of lumber, as compared to the total cost of building a house. Elon chose that particular spot because the economic of solar is geography dependent. The infrastructure costs of distributing 100% solar will be astronomical. I think you could pat yourself on the back if you figured out how to make it work for only 20x the cost of just the panels. --- > As I stated above, I have no idea how to estimate the cost of nuclear There is extensive data about nuclear costs, both estimated and empirical. In 2010, the U.S. Energy Information Administration estimated total captial costs for nuclear power at $5.4k per kW. http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/beck_plantcosts/index.html http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/beck_plantcosts/index.html (This is a rather safe estimate -- the EIA reported inflation-adjusted costs for actual, real-life plants build in the 1960s was $1.5k per kW. But I'll use the higher estimate.) The U.S. used 3.9 trillion kWh last year, twenty percent of which is already nuclear. So that's $1.9 trillion of capital for 100% of U.S. electricity to come from nuclear. --- At this point, coal makes the most economic sense of course. And the U.S. has enough for the next couple centuries.

paulddraper 10y ago

> there hardly exist any real valid renewable alternative Most people don't know that. Exaggerations like http://thesolutionsproject.org/ http://thesolutionsproject.org/ make them think that wind/solar/tidal could put more than a little dent in energy.

sinxoveretothex 10y ago
It is possible, at least in principle, to transition to only using solar for example. Musk gave the example, when unveiling the Powerwall, that to power the whole of the US would only require the whole Texas Panhandle to be covered in panels 25% efficient. I remember doing the calculation even with the current 15% efficiency and it came out that if each person has something like 9 m^2 of solar panels on their roof, the whole energy demand of the US is covered. Obviously, that's a shit ton of panels and batteries and we can't just pack them all on the Panhandle for example and it's entirely possible that nuclear is much cheaper (I don't know where to get the numbers to run this calculation). But it is possible. I think a better criticism is that it's too risky and too slow an avenue in comparison to the risk of climate change
- paulddraper 10y ago
  > the whole of the US would only require the whole Texas Panhandle to be covered in panels 25% efficient Are we building Dyson spheres next? I believe largish orders of mass-market solar panels (currently ~15% efficient, as you mentioned) are about $10/sq ft, but let's make that $5 for sake of argument. So $218k for one acre. The Texas Panhandle is 16.6 million acres. So assuming solar becomes nearly twice as efficient for half the cost, the solar panels alone for this venture would be $3.6 trillion. I hesitate to guess what construction, installation, batteries, or infrastructure for 16 million acres would add. --- So I concede that given best-case economics, impractical funding, and technology that doesn't exist, it could perhaps be done. More of a XKCD "What If?" scenario than a serious solution.
  - Dylan16807 10y ago
    That price is not unreasonable. The US consumes roughly 5 trillion kWh every year. At a low-end estimate of 10 cents per kWh we have a 15 trillion dollar budget to build a facility that lasts 30 years. If we prioritize the environment over cheap power, we could double or triple that budget (and if people use less power in response to higher prices, that makes our job even easier). Obviously it would take a while to ramp up production, but that's not hard, just slow.
  - sinxoveretothex 10y ago
    3.6 trillions is a lot of money if you intend to bulk buy all of it at once today, but comparatively less over, say, 10 years. US GDP is around 18 trillion/year, 2% of the GDP is a lot, but it's certainly realizable. Besides, it is somewhat meaningless to look at the price of solar panels without a reference. As I stated above, I have no idea how to estimate the cost of nuclear. I also don't know if the new kind of reactor (like traveling wave reactors) are anything more than a concept (it seems like breeder reactors are pretty much at the level of prototypes today). I think the important point is what the price difference is rather than whether a one-time purchase of solar panels would cost an amount to large to fit in one's wallet.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - paulddraper 10y ago
      $3.6 trillion is only a portion of just the materials cost. It's like the price of lumber, as compared to the total cost of building a house. Elon chose that particular spot because the economic of solar is geography dependent. The infrastructure costs of distributing 100% solar will be astronomical. I think you could pat yourself on the back if you figured out how to make it work for only 20x the cost of just the panels. --- > As I stated above, I have no idea how to estimate the cost of nuclear There is extensive data about nuclear costs, both estimated and empirical. In 2010, the U.S. Energy Information Administration estimated total captial costs for nuclear power at $5.4k per kW. http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/beck_plantcosts/index.html http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/beck_plantcosts/index.html (This is a rather safe estimate -- the EIA reported inflation-adjusted costs for actual, real-life plants build in the 1960s was $1.5k per kW. But I'll use the higher estimate.) The U.S. used 3.9 trillion kWh last year, twenty percent of which is already nuclear. So that's $1.9 trillion of capital for 100% of U.S. electricity to come from nuclear. --- At this point, coal makes the most economic sense of course. And the U.S. has enough for the next couple centuries.