5 ms·

It's positive but still no where near the scale of fossil fuels. If you consider the likely energy need growth of society, exponential maybe, it is really hard

by Guthur 9y ago

It's positive but still no where near the scale of fossil fuels. If you consider the likely energy need growth of society, exponential maybe, it is really hard to see how solar and wind will cut it. Personally i think a full embracement of gen 4 or better nuclear power generation is the only way truly bring energy security.

toomuchtodo 9y ago
You're completely off the mark. Enough energy from the sun hits the Earth in an hour or two to power humanity for a year. It's simply a matter of scaling up. Nuclear is already dead at current wind and solar generation costs.
- johncolanduoni 9y ago
  Did you just say "it's simply a matter of scaling up" unironically on HN? Even ignoring that, your ~4000x margin looks a lot impressive when you take into account minor details like how much of the Earth's surface is covered by water, or the response spectrum of solar panels, or thermodynamics. We get it, you're a big fan of wind and solar. Making reaching arguments to show how excited you are doesn't actually help it come to fruition.
  - toomuchtodo 9y ago
    I am a big fan of wind and solar! Appreciate you recognizing that! My reaching arguments aren't what is bringing about change, of course. It's a ruthless market for low cost energy. And renewables are delivering (as evidenced by this Bloomberg piece). That's what's driving coal, natural gas, and even nuclear out of business. It takes a very small piece of the Earth to power all of humanity with solar alone. We must continue to deploy wind and solar as quickly as possible though.
- Koromix 9y ago
  Photovoltaic capacity is expected to be around 4674 GW in 2050 (currently around 150, I think) [1]. Let's be optimistic and say it'll actually be around 20000 GW, just for the fun of it, and let's ignore all of the variability problems that solar poses. Considering that PV's capacity factor is around 15%, that's around 26 PWh of annual (electric) energy production, around 50% of the electrical energy we use up in a year today, nevermind what we will actually need in 2050 thanks to the neverending growth we're apparently trying to go for. IIRC, electricity represents 20-25% of our civilization's energy use mix, so solar should solve around 10-15% of our needs in 2050 under extremely optimistic assumptions and ignoring ALL of the variability, energy grid, energy storage, solar panel production issues, none of which are minor limitations. 2050 is around 10 years beyond the date we need to be carbon neutral to stay below 2°C [2], if we were to peak in 2020 and quickly ramp down our emissions. It's 20 years too late in business as usual scenarios. [1] http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/TechnologyRoadmapSolarPhotovoltaicEnergy_2014edition.pdf http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication... [2] http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/06/why-global-emissions-must-peak-by-2020/ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/06/why-gl...
  - icebraining 9y ago
    I don't get it, what's your argument? Yes, at the pace we're building them, PV is not sufficient. Guess what, the exact same fact is true of nuclear. All that establishes is that we must invest more, it doesn't say in what we should invest.
    - Koromix 9y ago
      It was an answer to parent's "It's simply a matter of scaling up." comment. I agree with you that the exact same fact is true of nuclear. And wind too, while we're at it. I don't think there's a way out of it: our technological civilization lives WAY WAY beyond its means, and that is made possible only by burning through fossil fuels, among many other non-renewable resources. When that dries up (economically speaking) or enough ecosystems have been damaged, our civilization will most likely fall apart. It'll be a slow and ugly process, it'll happen over decades, and it's already under way. Renewables would have been great in a simpler and slower world. Hopefully, that's how the next global (if any) civilization goes in a few hundred or thousand years.
      - sqeaky 9y ago
        It seems to me that people don't stop a behavior just because its unsustainable. They only seem to stop a bad behavior entirely when the market provides a less harmful alternative and its costs approximately the same amount or much less. Whale oil and ambergris where replaced by Fossil fuels. Ivory for billiard balls was replaced by plastic. Cigarettes are being replaced by vaping. Look at the amount of people skipping out on bike helmets and car safety belts. People don't do it even when there is literally no downside and it could literally save their life. The pace of the world is here to stay, people will just figure out how to sustain it with new stuff. There might a turbine in every backyard, I don't know what the solution will look like. But the extinction of several whale species wasn't enough to put lamplighters out of business coal and transmission lines did and the world got ever faster.
        Koromix 9y ago
- ams6110 9y ago
  Of course it's not remotely feasible to capture even a significant fraction of that solar energy.
pjc50 9y ago
"Exponential growth" of energy would start to directly cook the earth through rejected heat. I'm not too thrilled about the exponentially growing pile of radioactive waste either. (No, not the spent fuel, everything else)
neolefty 9y ago
Energy intensity (watts per dollar of economic activity) is leveling off and decreasing in developed economies such as the US, China, and Europe, and I think also South America. I don't know about India and Africa. But the days of exponential increases in power needs have passed, I'm pretty sure. And carbon intensity -- tons of CO2 per economic activity -- should show an even steeper decline, as energy generation becomes less CO2-intensive. We're going in the right direction, and it would be great to go there faster!

by Guthur 9y ago

toomuchtodo 9y ago

You're completely off the mark. Enough energy from the sun hits the Earth in an hour or two to power humanity for a year. It's simply a matter of scaling up. Nuclear is already dead at current wind and solar generation costs.

johncolanduoni 9y ago
Did you just say "it's simply a matter of scaling up" unironically on HN? Even ignoring that, your ~4000x margin looks a lot impressive when you take into account minor details like how much of the Earth's surface is covered by water, or the response spectrum of solar panels, or thermodynamics. We get it, you're a big fan of wind and solar. Making reaching arguments to show how excited you are doesn't actually help it come to fruition.
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  I am a big fan of wind and solar! Appreciate you recognizing that! My reaching arguments aren't what is bringing about change, of course. It's a ruthless market for low cost energy. And renewables are delivering (as evidenced by this Bloomberg piece). That's what's driving coal, natural gas, and even nuclear out of business. It takes a very small piece of the Earth to power all of humanity with solar alone. We must continue to deploy wind and solar as quickly as possible though.
Koromix 9y ago
Photovoltaic capacity is expected to be around 4674 GW in 2050 (currently around 150, I think) [1]. Let's be optimistic and say it'll actually be around 20000 GW, just for the fun of it, and let's ignore all of the variability problems that solar poses. Considering that PV's capacity factor is around 15%, that's around 26 PWh of annual (electric) energy production, around 50% of the electrical energy we use up in a year today, nevermind what we will actually need in 2050 thanks to the neverending growth we're apparently trying to go for. IIRC, electricity represents 20-25% of our civilization's energy use mix, so solar should solve around 10-15% of our needs in 2050 under extremely optimistic assumptions and ignoring ALL of the variability, energy grid, energy storage, solar panel production issues, none of which are minor limitations. 2050 is around 10 years beyond the date we need to be carbon neutral to stay below 2°C [2], if we were to peak in 2020 and quickly ramp down our emissions. It's 20 years too late in business as usual scenarios. [1] http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/TechnologyRoadmapSolarPhotovoltaicEnergy_2014edition.pdf http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication... [2] http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/06/why-global-emissions-must-peak-by-2020/ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/06/why-gl...
- icebraining 9y ago
  I don't get it, what's your argument? Yes, at the pace we're building them, PV is not sufficient. Guess what, the exact same fact is true of nuclear. All that establishes is that we must invest more, it doesn't say in what we should invest.
  - Koromix 9y ago
    It was an answer to parent's "It's simply a matter of scaling up." comment. I agree with you that the exact same fact is true of nuclear. And wind too, while we're at it. I don't think there's a way out of it: our technological civilization lives WAY WAY beyond its means, and that is made possible only by burning through fossil fuels, among many other non-renewable resources. When that dries up (economically speaking) or enough ecosystems have been damaged, our civilization will most likely fall apart. It'll be a slow and ugly process, it'll happen over decades, and it's already under way. Renewables would have been great in a simpler and slower world. Hopefully, that's how the next global (if any) civilization goes in a few hundred or thousand years.
    - sqeaky 9y ago
      It seems to me that people don't stop a behavior just because its unsustainable. They only seem to stop a bad behavior entirely when the market provides a less harmful alternative and its costs approximately the same amount or much less. Whale oil and ambergris where replaced by Fossil fuels. Ivory for billiard balls was replaced by plastic. Cigarettes are being replaced by vaping. Look at the amount of people skipping out on bike helmets and car safety belts. People don't do it even when there is literally no downside and it could literally save their life. The pace of the world is here to stay, people will just figure out how to sustain it with new stuff. There might a turbine in every backyard, I don't know what the solution will look like. But the extinction of several whale species wasn't enough to put lamplighters out of business coal and transmission lines did and the world got ever faster.
      - Koromix 9y ago
ams6110 9y ago
Of course it's not remotely feasible to capture even a significant fraction of that solar energy.

pjc50 9y ago

"Exponential growth" of energy would start to directly cook the earth through rejected heat. I'm not too thrilled about the exponentially growing pile of radioactive waste either. (No, not the spent fuel, everything else)

neolefty 9y ago

Energy intensity (watts per dollar of economic activity) is leveling off and decreasing in developed economies such as the US, China, and Europe, and I think also South America. I don't know about India and Africa. But the days of exponential increases in power needs have passed, I'm pretty sure. And carbon intensity -- tons of CO2 per economic activity -- should show an even steeper decline, as energy generation becomes less CO2-intensive. We're going in the right direction, and it would be great to go there faster!