5 ms·

True, and this is a issue today as well. Which is why I think that proposing a solution that compounds this issue even further should not be taken lightly. Edi

True, and this is a issue today as well. Which is why I think that proposing a solution that compounds this issue even further should not be taken lightly. Edit: put differently, why should we adopt a new solution that is even more exposed to the already known risks?

Robotbeat 10y ago
A large solar field makes for a pretty diffuse target. You might be able to target the connection to the grid, but that's no worse than it is today (and would be easily repaired). And I don't think our current electrical grid has a major problem that even a slight attention to infrastructure couldn't fix.
- short_sells_poo 10y ago
  Ok so you are saying that the new solution isn't any worse in terms of security than the current one, so it's fine? In any case, you cannot compare this to oil pipelines directly because we can stockpile oil. Even if all the pipelines are taken out, many countries stockpile oil that can bridge them over until an alternative solution is found. If a considerable part of the electricity comes from some remote site in a desert and the connection is taken out, that'll immediately plunge the country into darkness. I like your optimism about all the problems being trivial, but with your mindset every problem we currently face is trivial. At this point, why don't you just propose that we go and harvest Helium-3 from Jupiter? I mean, we already sent some probes that far, it's just some engineering issues, right? There are a whole host of political, engineering and social issues that need to be sorted before something like you propose can be done. It can work for individual countries in certain regions, but it is not in a state where it can fix the energy problems of the world or liberate us of the carbon dependence.
  - Robotbeat 10y ago
    I'm the classic US-centric American. Northern Europe can solve its own problems, they have all the tools (nuclear, hydro, wind, geothermal). The rest of the world (i.e. the vast majority of people) is closer to the equator and doesn't need a cable running to the Sahara.
    - jcranmer 10y ago
      About a decade ago, there was a book written which looked at the ability of Great Britain to become self-sufficient entirely in renewable energy (https://www.withouthotair.com/ https://www.withouthotair.com/ looks to be the URL). It concluded that there is literally not enough renewable energy potential in Great Britain (e.g., cover every square millimeter of space with solar panels) to do so at then-current energy consumption rates. It also pointed out problems with approaches like "giant solar fields in the Sahara" (the requisite solar fields are, well, roughly the size of Germany in terms of required area). Nuclear is technically not a renewable energy resource, but it does have requisite power generation capabilities--and very staunch anti-nuclear activism that makes expanding nuclear difficult. All in all, quite an eye-opening read.
      - Robotbeat 10y ago
        "It concluded that there is literally not enough renewable energy potential in Great Britain (e.g., cover every square millimeter of space with solar panels) to do so at then-current energy consumption rates." That is false, though. Just a little math shows why. The UK is 242,500 km². Nameplate solar capacity on that would be on the order of 150MW/km², so 36 Terawatts. UK average electrical consumption is 32 /Giga/watts. Assume solar produces 1/4 of that 36TW on average when it's sunny during equinox, so 9TW. Even on a pretty cloudy day on the winter solstace in London, you're still going to produce at least 1/10th to 1/20th of that much, so worst case of worst cases (cloudy day on solstice) you're looking at 450GW average if you cover the entire UK in solar panels. That's still over ten times the UK's average electrical consumption. (I used UK instead of Great Britain, but that doesn't make much difference.) I mean, the overall point that you wouldn't want to power the UK on solar alone is totally and completely valid (and I fully support the Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant, by the way), but the idea that it's literally not possible is BS.
        jcranmer 10y ago
        Energy consumption here does not mean just current electricity usage. It also includes things like fueling cars and planes. Also, the 150MW/km² is apparently roughly the summer expected solar insolation; year-round average insolation comes out to ~100MW/km² per the book's numbers. The total chart at the end came out to <https://www.withouthotair.com/c18/page_103.shtml> https://www.withouthotair.com/c18/page_103.shtml>, with solar making up about 68 kWh/d per person.
  - fao_ 10y ago
    "Ok so you are saying that the new solution isn't any worse in terms of security than the current one, so it's fine?" Yes. You're blowing up the security argument when really it isn't the security of it that is the problem -- our current infrastructure isn't more secure, and we have had only minimal problems with it thus far. The problem is the imminent and looming destruction of various thousands of ecosystems, and the continuing habitability of the planet. It could be done. We got to the moon in about twenty years, which was much more of a technological leap than this will be. With the concentrated effort and enough propaganda, we could make the switch from coal/gas/oil. We are very rapidly running out of runway.

Robotbeat 10y ago

A large solar field makes for a pretty diffuse target. You might be able to target the connection to the grid, but that's no worse than it is today (and would be easily repaired). And I don't think our current electrical grid has a major problem that even a slight attention to infrastructure couldn't fix.

short_sells_poo 10y ago
Ok so you are saying that the new solution isn't any worse in terms of security than the current one, so it's fine? In any case, you cannot compare this to oil pipelines directly because we can stockpile oil. Even if all the pipelines are taken out, many countries stockpile oil that can bridge them over until an alternative solution is found. If a considerable part of the electricity comes from some remote site in a desert and the connection is taken out, that'll immediately plunge the country into darkness. I like your optimism about all the problems being trivial, but with your mindset every problem we currently face is trivial. At this point, why don't you just propose that we go and harvest Helium-3 from Jupiter? I mean, we already sent some probes that far, it's just some engineering issues, right? There are a whole host of political, engineering and social issues that need to be sorted before something like you propose can be done. It can work for individual countries in certain regions, but it is not in a state where it can fix the energy problems of the world or liberate us of the carbon dependence.
- Robotbeat 10y ago
  I'm the classic US-centric American. Northern Europe can solve its own problems, they have all the tools (nuclear, hydro, wind, geothermal). The rest of the world (i.e. the vast majority of people) is closer to the equator and doesn't need a cable running to the Sahara.
  - jcranmer 10y ago
    About a decade ago, there was a book written which looked at the ability of Great Britain to become self-sufficient entirely in renewable energy (https://www.withouthotair.com/ https://www.withouthotair.com/ looks to be the URL). It concluded that there is literally not enough renewable energy potential in Great Britain (e.g., cover every square millimeter of space with solar panels) to do so at then-current energy consumption rates. It also pointed out problems with approaches like "giant solar fields in the Sahara" (the requisite solar fields are, well, roughly the size of Germany in terms of required area). Nuclear is technically not a renewable energy resource, but it does have requisite power generation capabilities--and very staunch anti-nuclear activism that makes expanding nuclear difficult. All in all, quite an eye-opening read.
    - Robotbeat 10y ago
      "It concluded that there is literally not enough renewable energy potential in Great Britain (e.g., cover every square millimeter of space with solar panels) to do so at then-current energy consumption rates." That is false, though. Just a little math shows why. The UK is 242,500 km². Nameplate solar capacity on that would be on the order of 150MW/km², so 36 Terawatts. UK average electrical consumption is 32 /Giga/watts. Assume solar produces 1/4 of that 36TW on average when it's sunny during equinox, so 9TW. Even on a pretty cloudy day on the winter solstace in London, you're still going to produce at least 1/10th to 1/20th of that much, so worst case of worst cases (cloudy day on solstice) you're looking at 450GW average if you cover the entire UK in solar panels. That's still over ten times the UK's average electrical consumption. (I used UK instead of Great Britain, but that doesn't make much difference.) I mean, the overall point that you wouldn't want to power the UK on solar alone is totally and completely valid (and I fully support the Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant, by the way), but the idea that it's literally not possible is BS.
      - jcranmer 10y ago
        Energy consumption here does not mean just current electricity usage. It also includes things like fueling cars and planes. Also, the 150MW/km² is apparently roughly the summer expected solar insolation; year-round average insolation comes out to ~100MW/km² per the book's numbers. The total chart at the end came out to <https://www.withouthotair.com/c18/page_103.shtml> https://www.withouthotair.com/c18/page_103.shtml>, with solar making up about 68 kWh/d per person.
- fao_ 10y ago
  "Ok so you are saying that the new solution isn't any worse in terms of security than the current one, so it's fine?" Yes. You're blowing up the security argument when really it isn't the security of it that is the problem -- our current infrastructure isn't more secure, and we have had only minimal problems with it thus far. The problem is the imminent and looming destruction of various thousands of ecosystems, and the continuing habitability of the planet. It could be done. We got to the moon in about twenty years, which was much more of a technological leap than this will be. With the concentrated effort and enough propaganda, we could make the switch from coal/gas/oil. We are very rapidly running out of runway.