5 ms·

Solar, wind & batteries will power the future. It is a question of when not if. All others will fade into oblivion. So long, and thanks for all the Joules.

by mohawk 9y ago

flukus 9y ago
The fact that they've made so many gains despite governments often building barriers to help non-renewables is quite telling.
ams6110 9y ago
Nonsense. They won't scale.
- mohawk 9y ago
  They will. I'm an investor, i like to make money, and i hate losing it. So i'm happy there's still someone else on the other side of the trade :-)
  - thedailymail 9y ago
    The person on the other side of the trade also likes to make money and hates losing it.
    - mohawk 9y ago
      So may the best one of us win. My most profitable investments have been based on other people's myopia, and it is a far sweeter victory than scoring points in an online discussion forum.
- philipkglass 9y ago
  Nuclear power presently produces ~11% of world electricity. Wind + solar can scale to that penetration level even without battery storage and in much of the world wind or solar will already deliver LCOE lower than new-build nuclear. Reaching really high penetration levels depends on presently-unknown economics of large scale storage. (Much how the success or failure of molten salt reactors and every other next-generation nuclear dream is dependent far more on delivered costs than physics.) EDIT: I see that you were responding to someone who is already sure that storage-backed wind and solar will become the only electricity sources. That's certainly a bolder claim than scaling up to match present-day nuclear penetration levels.
  - nindalf 9y ago
    Certainly Wind and Solar can scale to 11%. The question is about the other 89%. A significant chunk of it could be nuclear instead of coal and we would definitely be better off. And make no mistake, you need to choose between coal and nuclear because it'll be a long while before batteries have sufficient capacity to power the grid for days at a time.
    - flukus 9y ago
      > Certainly Wind and Solar can scale to 11%. The question is about the other 89%. Is it still in question? If you can get to 11% then you can get to 100% with enough geographic distribution and batteries. Wind and solar are now cheaper than coal, even old unsafe nuclear never got to that point.
Houshalter 9y ago
This comment adds nothing and presents no argument. And I find this sentiment really hard to understand. Why bet everything on solar? Nuclear technology already exists now. In fact it's existed for quite awhile. We could have gotten rid of coal decades ago, if not for irrational fear. It may already be too late to stop climate change. Why wait another decade or two (or three...) until the kinks in solar are worked out (if they ever are...)? It's also a bit ridiculous to point out the improvement in solar technology, and ignore everything else. Sure solar technology is improving over time. So is nuclear. And it could probably be improving a lot faster if it got the same level of interest. The major accidents everyone thinks of were all by decades old reactors. We know of much safer ways to do things, and we've learned a lot from those events. Even coal will improve over time. All that discussion of the coming robot revolution surely applies to coal mining.
- flukus 9y ago
  > It's also a bit ridiculous to point out the improvement in solar technology, and ignore everything else. Sure solar technology is improving over time. So is nuclear. The solar improvements are a lot more demonstrable, the nuclear ones are usually more theoretical due to the time and cost of building new reactors. >In fact it's existed for quite awhile. We could have gotten rid of coal decades ago, if not for irrational fear. Unsafe nuclear has existed for quite a while. Safe nuclear has yet to prove it's practical, which includes being cost effective against wind and solar. > And I find this sentiment really hard to understand. Why bet everything on solar? Parent mentioned wind and solar, and they didn't exclude others like hydro and tidal where appropriate. That's not betting everything on solar. >All that discussion of the coming robot revolution surely applies to coal mining. To a large extent it already has. New mines are human intensive to create, but largely automated after they're online.
- mohawk 9y ago
  Ok, let's find some common ground: we agree current nuclear reactors "could be a lot better". With very finite uranium, coal, and oil deposits on earth these forms of energy generation are only a short-term solution. As an aside, it would also be great to save those energy supplies for a dark and rainy day. My prediction is based on Econ 101: the cheapest solution will win. Nuclear reactors (and coal plants) are long-term investment projects with payback over decades. If you're close to the equator, it doesn't even make sense today. And the increasing cost differential between solar and nuclear/coal will mean that zone is expanding towards the poles. I'm sorry if you're financially or intellectually invested in nuclear, but that's what i think will happen.
seanmcdirmid 9y ago
Fusion has and always will be the power of the future. Joking aside, people often seem to ignore what we could do with a true energy breakthrough.
anticodon 9y ago
This is wishful thinking. Solar, wind and batteries has tons of unsolved problems. And I have serious doubts they will be solved in the next 15-20 years. I hear news about new "revolutionary" batteries every months for at least 20 years. But still, every device uses the same old batteries.
- llukas 9y ago
  Name some of those problems please? Meanwhile LCOE of wind/solar is challenging that of coal power and closing to nuclear. In 15-20 years it would be way lower.
  - adrianN 9y ago
    Batteries suck? They are quite expensive, have low capacity and age too quickly. They are also difficult to recycle.
  - Eerie 9y ago
    >Name some of those problems please? A windless week in the winter will leave you without power.
  - anticodon 9y ago
    The biggest problem is that no system can withstand such huge alternations in amounts of generated power. Solar and wind energy isn't available 24/7 and generation can't be rapidly changed to compensate for changes in consumption.

Solar, wind & batteries will power the future. It is a question of when not if. All others will fade into oblivion. So long, and thanks for all the Joules.

by mohawk 9y ago

Solar, wind & batteries will power the future. It is a question of when not if. All others will fade into oblivion. So long, and thanks for all the Joules.

flukus 9y ago

The fact that they've made so many gains despite governments often building barriers to help non-renewables is quite telling.

ams6110 9y ago

Nonsense. They won't scale.

mohawk 9y ago
They will. I'm an investor, i like to make money, and i hate losing it. So i'm happy there's still someone else on the other side of the trade :-)
- thedailymail 9y ago
  The person on the other side of the trade also likes to make money and hates losing it.
  - mohawk 9y ago
    So may the best one of us win. My most profitable investments have been based on other people's myopia, and it is a far sweeter victory than scoring points in an online discussion forum.
philipkglass 9y ago
Nuclear power presently produces ~11% of world electricity. Wind + solar can scale to that penetration level even without battery storage and in much of the world wind or solar will already deliver LCOE lower than new-build nuclear. Reaching really high penetration levels depends on presently-unknown economics of large scale storage. (Much how the success or failure of molten salt reactors and every other next-generation nuclear dream is dependent far more on delivered costs than physics.) EDIT: I see that you were responding to someone who is already sure that storage-backed wind and solar will become the only electricity sources. That's certainly a bolder claim than scaling up to match present-day nuclear penetration levels.
- nindalf 9y ago
  Certainly Wind and Solar can scale to 11%. The question is about the other 89%. A significant chunk of it could be nuclear instead of coal and we would definitely be better off. And make no mistake, you need to choose between coal and nuclear because it'll be a long while before batteries have sufficient capacity to power the grid for days at a time.
  - flukus 9y ago
    > Certainly Wind and Solar can scale to 11%. The question is about the other 89%. Is it still in question? If you can get to 11% then you can get to 100% with enough geographic distribution and batteries. Wind and solar are now cheaper than coal, even old unsafe nuclear never got to that point.

Houshalter 9y ago

This comment adds nothing and presents no argument. And I find this sentiment really hard to understand. Why bet everything on solar? Nuclear technology already exists now. In fact it's existed for quite awhile. We could have gotten rid of coal decades ago, if not for irrational fear. It may already be too late to stop climate change. Why wait another decade or two (or three...) until the kinks in solar are worked out (if they ever are...)? It's also a bit ridiculous to point out the improvement in solar technology, and ignore everything else. Sure solar technology is improving over time. So is nuclear. And it could probably be improving a lot faster if it got the same level of interest. The major accidents everyone thinks of were all by decades old reactors. We know of much safer ways to do things, and we've learned a lot from those events. Even coal will improve over time. All that discussion of the coming robot revolution surely applies to coal mining.

flukus 9y ago
> It's also a bit ridiculous to point out the improvement in solar technology, and ignore everything else. Sure solar technology is improving over time. So is nuclear. The solar improvements are a lot more demonstrable, the nuclear ones are usually more theoretical due to the time and cost of building new reactors. >In fact it's existed for quite awhile. We could have gotten rid of coal decades ago, if not for irrational fear. Unsafe nuclear has existed for quite a while. Safe nuclear has yet to prove it's practical, which includes being cost effective against wind and solar. > And I find this sentiment really hard to understand. Why bet everything on solar? Parent mentioned wind and solar, and they didn't exclude others like hydro and tidal where appropriate. That's not betting everything on solar. >All that discussion of the coming robot revolution surely applies to coal mining. To a large extent it already has. New mines are human intensive to create, but largely automated after they're online.
mohawk 9y ago
Ok, let's find some common ground: we agree current nuclear reactors "could be a lot better". With very finite uranium, coal, and oil deposits on earth these forms of energy generation are only a short-term solution. As an aside, it would also be great to save those energy supplies for a dark and rainy day. My prediction is based on Econ 101: the cheapest solution will win. Nuclear reactors (and coal plants) are long-term investment projects with payback over decades. If you're close to the equator, it doesn't even make sense today. And the increasing cost differential between solar and nuclear/coal will mean that zone is expanding towards the poles. I'm sorry if you're financially or intellectually invested in nuclear, but that's what i think will happen.

seanmcdirmid 9y ago

Fusion has and always will be the power of the future. Joking aside, people often seem to ignore what we could do with a true energy breakthrough.

anticodon 9y ago

This is wishful thinking. Solar, wind and batteries has tons of unsolved problems. And I have serious doubts they will be solved in the next 15-20 years. I hear news about new "revolutionary" batteries every months for at least 20 years. But still, every device uses the same old batteries.

llukas 9y ago
Name some of those problems please? Meanwhile LCOE of wind/solar is challenging that of coal power and closing to nuclear. In 15-20 years it would be way lower.
- adrianN 9y ago
  Batteries suck? They are quite expensive, have low capacity and age too quickly. They are also difficult to recycle.
- Eerie 9y ago
  >Name some of those problems please? A windless week in the winter will leave you without power.
- anticodon 9y ago
  The biggest problem is that no system can withstand such huge alternations in amounts of generated power. Solar and wind energy isn't available 24/7 and generation can't be rapidly changed to compensate for changes in consumption.