3 ms·

> Another decade is going to make storage extremely cheap, as in 2x-10x cheaper. It might, or it might not; in the mean time people go on using electricity at

> Another decade is going to make storage extremely cheap, as in 2x-10x cheaper. It might, or it might not; in the mean time people go on using electricity at times when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining.

ocschwar 10y ago
I hear it's getting fashionable to use TCP/IP to coordinate consumption of electricity with power availability from wind/solar
tomjen3 10y ago
Even when they do not, electrical requirements are going to skyrocket when everybody has to charge their electric car overnight — right now that is when electricity is cheapest, but is almost certain that going to be true in the future. A personal level, I don't take anybody seriously who talks about about global warming/climate change without mentioning nuclear as the solution, as it cuts down on those who simply want to use it for political purposes.
- 7952 10y ago
  The environment and energy are political issues. We have to strike a balance between different interests which cannot be fully divorced from subjective debate.
  - tomjen3 10y ago
    If you do about it that way, everything is a political issue, which is the same as saying you will never ever be able to get anything done period — which is not really helpful.
    - 7952 10y ago
      Yes, we can't get anything done. I had noticed. Global warming is a moral issue that society disagrees on. That makes it political . We want to address global warming because it is the right thing to do. There is no physical law that requires us to do those things. Expecting objectivity on a moral question is just not reasonable. Attacking someones character on the basis of one little flaw in their argument is not going to help. People need to believe in the mission, the specifics of the solution are less important. It is interesting how much society has tried to depoliticize the environment. Politicians love to setup institutions and legal frameworks that let them shrug-off any responsibility or blame. They don't have to deal with the NIMBYs or campaigners, we have an environmental impact assessment instead. Across lots of different fields you see science used as a crutch to avoid any debate on morality. To make real change we have to address that question head on.
- ZeroGravitas 10y ago
  I personally wouldn't rush to shut down existing, well run nuclear plants, but don't see a poliferation of current nuclear designs as feasible and the timeline is too short to wait until new models are proven. In the meantime, solar, wind, efficiency, demand response, a carbon tax, insulation, time of use pricing and a variety of other proven tech could solve the issue if there was the political will to do so.

ocschwar 10y ago

I hear it's getting fashionable to use TCP/IP to coordinate consumption of electricity with power availability from wind/solar

tomjen3 10y ago

Even when they do not, electrical requirements are going to skyrocket when everybody has to charge their electric car overnight — right now that is when electricity is cheapest, but is almost certain that going to be true in the future. A personal level, I don't take anybody seriously who talks about about global warming/climate change without mentioning nuclear as the solution, as it cuts down on those who simply want to use it for political purposes.

7952 10y ago
The environment and energy are political issues. We have to strike a balance between different interests which cannot be fully divorced from subjective debate.
- tomjen3 10y ago
  If you do about it that way, everything is a political issue, which is the same as saying you will never ever be able to get anything done period — which is not really helpful.
  - 7952 10y ago
    Yes, we can't get anything done. I had noticed. Global warming is a moral issue that society disagrees on. That makes it political . We want to address global warming because it is the right thing to do. There is no physical law that requires us to do those things. Expecting objectivity on a moral question is just not reasonable. Attacking someones character on the basis of one little flaw in their argument is not going to help. People need to believe in the mission, the specifics of the solution are less important. It is interesting how much society has tried to depoliticize the environment. Politicians love to setup institutions and legal frameworks that let them shrug-off any responsibility or blame. They don't have to deal with the NIMBYs or campaigners, we have an environmental impact assessment instead. Across lots of different fields you see science used as a crutch to avoid any debate on morality. To make real change we have to address that question head on.
ZeroGravitas 10y ago
I personally wouldn't rush to shut down existing, well run nuclear plants, but don't see a poliferation of current nuclear designs as feasible and the timeline is too short to wait until new models are proven. In the meantime, solar, wind, efficiency, demand response, a carbon tax, insulation, time of use pricing and a variety of other proven tech could solve the issue if there was the political will to do so.