4 ms·

Came here to say the same thing. Anytime an energy discussion comes up, I try to help dispell this myth that wind and solar will solve all our problems, especia

Came here to say the same thing. Anytime an energy discussion comes up, I try to help dispell this myth that wind and solar will solve all our problems, especially in the global context of rising energy needs. If you care about the enviroment and our future on this planet, it behooves you to look into nuclear research and get uptodate. I would love to see us solve the clean energy problem fully this century, and the key factor is going to be nuclear.

kungtotte 9y ago
It's always been my instinct that decentralisation of energy production is the true path forward, regardless of method. If most of us had solar panels on our roofs for example you would reduce the demand on the power grid. It's not enough to be completely self reliant except for a very few people, but if everyone dropped their consumption by say 20% on average, that's a whole lot of power that centralised plants don't need to generate. For people living on larger properties, a small wind turbine or two is also not out of the question. Every little bit helps.
Jedd 9y ago
> ... I try to help dispell this myth that wind and solar will solve all our problems, especially in the global context of rising energy needs. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16473729 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16473729 I can't see any comment from you on this story from 10 days ago that was titled: "After rising for 100 years, electricity demand is flat (vox.com)" Not everyone agrees that rising energy needs are a given, or even just a myth that we should be politely accommodating. It would behoove <sic> you to separate fusion and fission from any call to action to investigation 'nuclear' as they are substantially different in terms of waste and safety.
- jfaucett 9y ago
  Yes, I didn't mention fission for 2 reasons #1 anyone who looks into nuclear already knows this and #2 anyone else is usually just confused by it. I don't spend every day on HN so I just missed that story and dont have time to look into it now, but almost every article I've ever read till now had ways the energy was displaced and not actually reduced or at a plateau. Also why would you not want more energy? You can do more things, better, faster, etc. The only reason not to want energy is because of externalities, which is reasonable but needs to be weighed in the context of what your giving up i.e. convience, efficiency, productivity, etc.
  - Jedd 9y ago
    Fair enough. I always draw the distinction between fission and fusion when talking to people who do, or don't, know the difference - as the former benefits from the clarity, and the latter from the (new) understanding. It's like using solar now to describe only photo-voltaic cells - solar thermal is likely to be a much more interesting technology for grid-supply, but few people that aren't interested in the area know about it (at least here in Australia, where we haven't dabbled much, and have an administration that's very pro-coal). As to your question - you answered it yourself, I see. You wouldn't want more energy if it's going to ultimately cost you your civilisation -- that's the easy answer. But also if you have any concept of restraint, moderation, efficiency improvements, etc. (Though mostly if it's going to cost you your civilisation.)
    - jfaucett 9y ago
      so... we pretty much completely agree :)

kungtotte 9y ago

It's always been my instinct that decentralisation of energy production is the true path forward, regardless of method. If most of us had solar panels on our roofs for example you would reduce the demand on the power grid. It's not enough to be completely self reliant except for a very few people, but if everyone dropped their consumption by say 20% on average, that's a whole lot of power that centralised plants don't need to generate. For people living on larger properties, a small wind turbine or two is also not out of the question. Every little bit helps.

Jedd 9y ago

> ... I try to help dispell this myth that wind and solar will solve all our problems, especially in the global context of rising energy needs. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16473729 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16473729 I can't see any comment from you on this story from 10 days ago that was titled: "After rising for 100 years, electricity demand is flat (vox.com)" Not everyone agrees that rising energy needs are a given, or even just a myth that we should be politely accommodating. It would behoove <sic> you to separate fusion and fission from any call to action to investigation 'nuclear' as they are substantially different in terms of waste and safety.

jfaucett 9y ago
Yes, I didn't mention fission for 2 reasons #1 anyone who looks into nuclear already knows this and #2 anyone else is usually just confused by it. I don't spend every day on HN so I just missed that story and dont have time to look into it now, but almost every article I've ever read till now had ways the energy was displaced and not actually reduced or at a plateau. Also why would you not want more energy? You can do more things, better, faster, etc. The only reason not to want energy is because of externalities, which is reasonable but needs to be weighed in the context of what your giving up i.e. convience, efficiency, productivity, etc.
- Jedd 9y ago
  Fair enough. I always draw the distinction between fission and fusion when talking to people who do, or don't, know the difference - as the former benefits from the clarity, and the latter from the (new) understanding. It's like using solar now to describe only photo-voltaic cells - solar thermal is likely to be a much more interesting technology for grid-supply, but few people that aren't interested in the area know about it (at least here in Australia, where we haven't dabbled much, and have an administration that's very pro-coal). As to your question - you answered it yourself, I see. You wouldn't want more energy if it's going to ultimately cost you your civilisation -- that's the easy answer. But also if you have any concept of restraint, moderation, efficiency improvements, etc. (Though mostly if it's going to cost you your civilisation.)
  - jfaucett 9y ago
    so... we pretty much completely agree :)