3 ms·

>At our current renewables deployment rate, it will take 400 years to swap out all fossil fuel generation This seemed off to me, so I checked the source. From

>At our current renewables deployment rate, it will take 400 years to swap out all fossil fuel generation This seemed off to me, so I checked the source. From TFA (in Technology Review): >Instead of the roughly 1,100 megawatts of carbon-free energy per day likely needed to prevent temperatures from rising more than 2 ˚C, as the 2003 Science paper by Caldeira and his colleagues found, we are adding around 151 megawatts. That’s only enough to power roughly 125,000 homes. >At that rate, substantially transforming the energy system would take, not the next three decades, but nearly the next four centuries. Can anyone tell me how can this possibly compute? 94% of new electricity generation is renewable,[1] and it's not like power plants have a lifetime of 400 years... edit: Of course, it was staring me in the face the whole time. They're using numbers from 2003! Essentially they're looking at the tail beginning of the logistic adoption curve[2] (the sloooooooow exponential ramp) and extrapolating it in a linear fashion. But logistic curves are "S-shaped," not linear. [1] https://electrek.co/2018/01/12/94-percent-new-electricity-capacity-usa-from-renewables/ https://electrek.co/2018/01/12/94-percent-new-electricity-ca... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_function#Applications https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_function#Applications

loeg 9y ago
Wind and solar need tons and tons of land to power our energy needs, and the developing world will need more and more power to escape poverty. Solar panels on every house might be sufficient, but it's far more expensive and consumes far more area than nuclear. We need cheap and abundant nuclear power to bring our carbon emissions down without wasting tons of acreage (something like an area the size of the US to power the world, per Steven Pinker) on power generation.
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  This comes up in every thread, but it's not realistic. It takes a decade and a billion dollars (at least) to build new nuclear power plants. It's not happening, at least not in the time frame we need to keep global warming below 4C (2C is a pipe dream at this point). [1] It would only take 0.6 percent of total US land mass covered in solar to power the entire country (about 100 miles by 100 miles). The batteries to back that energy production would only be about 1 square mile. That doesn't take into account residential rooftop solar already producing. Nor wind turbine parks in the middle of nowhere that contribute to farmer and rancher incomes. Offshore wind can be sited anywhere along the costs outside of shipping lanes, far enough off in the distance to not be seen but close enough to keep transmission costs reasonable. We are awash in clean, renewable energy. To your point about the developing world, India is aggressively deploying solar, and is 4 years ahead of its solar capacity targets. Solar and wind are ramping on curves somewhere between linear and exponential. They can be turned up in months, not years. They can be sited almost anywhere. They are what is going to win the day. [1] https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/nuclear/has-us-nuclear-powers-death-spiral-begun https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/nuclear/has-us-nuclear-powe...
  - loeg 9y ago
    Mass-produced tiny reactors reduce capital cost and construction time. Even without that, energy for 10 years from now still matters.
    - toomuchtodo 9y ago
      Show me a mass produced tiny reactor in production. If not in production, provide a solvent business that can produce and maintain these reactors. https://blog.ucsusa.org/mike-jacobs/solar-vs-nuclear https://blog.ucsusa.org/mike-jacobs/solar-vs-nuclear "In comparison with nuclear, the amount of solar power built in 2016, taking into account how many hours each can operate each day, is the equivalent of more than 3 new nuclear plants. To dive in a little deeper: let’s use a 25 percent capacity factor for new solar, making the 14,626 MW installed equivalent to 3,650 MW of theoretically perfectly running nuclear plants. The Westinghouse AP 1000 units under construction for the last 7-10+ years produce about 1,100 MW. So, in one year, solar additions were equal to what takes more than 7 years to build. The difference in speed of deployment is why UCS (Union of Concerned Scientists) is clear that nuclear power isn’t a near-term climate solution." So if you're not going to take my (rando HN poster's) word for it, the Union of Concerned Scientists seems somewhat reputable.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - djrogers 9y ago
      Mass-produced tiny reactors exist in sci-fi, and maybe some potential long-term future. What we have now are ‘renewables’ so let’s be realistic.
      - slededit 9y ago
        And also US Navy submarines and large surface vessels.
        djrogers 9y ago
        Those are neither mass-produced, nor tiny - they produce 50-500MW of power.
- paranoidrobot 9y ago
  Both Wind and Solar can in many cases be co-located with other land usage. Wind farms go great on agricultural farms - they tend to have wide open spaces, and the actual footprint of a tower can have minor impact upon the productivity of the field. Solar generation goes great on both residential and in particular - commercial buildings, over the tops of parking lots, etc - which has the dual effect of producing power and reducing the heating of the underlying building/parked cars (great for reducing the need for air conditioning) Your average suburban home has enough roof area to produce either all of, or a significant fraction of, it's own energy for a moderate household. Marginal-use land (hilly areas), coastal areas, and off-shore are also generally good areas for windfarms too.
- PhantomGremlin 9y ago
  Wind and solar need tons and tons of land to power our energy needs Elon Musk begs to differ. Here's something he said: “If you wanted to power the entire United States with solar panels, it would take a fairly small corner of Nevada or Texas or Utah; you only need about 100 miles by 100 miles of solar panels to power the entire United States,” Musk said at at the event in Rhode Island. “The batteries you need to store the energy, so you have 24/7 power, is 1 mile by 1 mile. One square-mile.” https://www.inverse.com/article/34239-how-many-solar-panels-to-power-the-usa https://www.inverse.com/article/34239-how-many-solar-panels-... something like an area the size of the US to power the world, per Steven Pinker Not to slag on Pinker, but Musk has proved himself to be a hell of a lot better visionary in the real world than most anyone else, and that includes pop authors. Somewhere else I saw a claim of 0.6% of US land area needed for US power needs. Even if it's 1%, no BFD. Let's assume that many areas of the world don't have as good solar irradiance as the USA. So maybe it's 2% in some other places. Still, no BFD. IMO the biggest problem with current nuclear is that it's run by utility companies. Those places aren't staffed by the world's brightest bulbs (heh heh). Allowing morons like that to build and manage nuclear plants is akin to allowing toddlers to play with live hand grenades. Most of the time they don't pull the pin, but when they do the results aren't pretty. PV solar is simplicity itself. No moving parts. Linear economies of scale: 2x the panels means 2x the cost and 2x the power. OTOH Southern Co. is now saying that the two nuclear reactors they are trying to complete will cost more than $25 billion. https://www.myajc.com/business/southern-says-vogtle-costs-exceed-25b/mvP3M8H3Db3Kw4RNMB2n0O/ https://www.myajc.com/business/southern-says-vogtle-costs-ex... Oops.
ThomPete 9y ago
There is no exponential when it comes to renewables. The only source of energy we have that provides exponential is nuclear but unfortunately, there is a lot of pushback although it's both greener and provides more energy than wind and solar can ever do. Furthermore, while they are renewable to they are also unreliable and need to have backup sources which makes them unfit as a enegy base. Remove the subsidies and you will see just how problematic they are. And then we haven't even looked at the problem with producing them, maintaining them etc. http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/topics/encyclopedia/solar/ http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/topics/encyclopedia/so...

loeg 9y ago

Wind and solar need tons and tons of land to power our energy needs, and the developing world will need more and more power to escape poverty. Solar panels on every house might be sufficient, but it's far more expensive and consumes far more area than nuclear. We need cheap and abundant nuclear power to bring our carbon emissions down without wasting tons of acreage (something like an area the size of the US to power the world, per Steven Pinker) on power generation.

toomuchtodo 9y ago
This comes up in every thread, but it's not realistic. It takes a decade and a billion dollars (at least) to build new nuclear power plants. It's not happening, at least not in the time frame we need to keep global warming below 4C (2C is a pipe dream at this point). [1] It would only take 0.6 percent of total US land mass covered in solar to power the entire country (about 100 miles by 100 miles). The batteries to back that energy production would only be about 1 square mile. That doesn't take into account residential rooftop solar already producing. Nor wind turbine parks in the middle of nowhere that contribute to farmer and rancher incomes. Offshore wind can be sited anywhere along the costs outside of shipping lanes, far enough off in the distance to not be seen but close enough to keep transmission costs reasonable. We are awash in clean, renewable energy. To your point about the developing world, India is aggressively deploying solar, and is 4 years ahead of its solar capacity targets. Solar and wind are ramping on curves somewhere between linear and exponential. They can be turned up in months, not years. They can be sited almost anywhere. They are what is going to win the day. [1] https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/nuclear/has-us-nuclear-powers-death-spiral-begun https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/nuclear/has-us-nuclear-powe...
- loeg 9y ago
  Mass-produced tiny reactors reduce capital cost and construction time. Even without that, energy for 10 years from now still matters.
  - toomuchtodo 9y ago
    Show me a mass produced tiny reactor in production. If not in production, provide a solvent business that can produce and maintain these reactors. https://blog.ucsusa.org/mike-jacobs/solar-vs-nuclear https://blog.ucsusa.org/mike-jacobs/solar-vs-nuclear "In comparison with nuclear, the amount of solar power built in 2016, taking into account how many hours each can operate each day, is the equivalent of more than 3 new nuclear plants. To dive in a little deeper: let’s use a 25 percent capacity factor for new solar, making the 14,626 MW installed equivalent to 3,650 MW of theoretically perfectly running nuclear plants. The Westinghouse AP 1000 units under construction for the last 7-10+ years produce about 1,100 MW. So, in one year, solar additions were equal to what takes more than 7 years to build. The difference in speed of deployment is why UCS (Union of Concerned Scientists) is clear that nuclear power isn’t a near-term climate solution." So if you're not going to take my (rando HN poster's) word for it, the Union of Concerned Scientists seems somewhat reputable.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - djrogers 9y ago
    Mass-produced tiny reactors exist in sci-fi, and maybe some potential long-term future. What we have now are ‘renewables’ so let’s be realistic.
    - slededit 9y ago
      And also US Navy submarines and large surface vessels.
      - djrogers 9y ago
        Those are neither mass-produced, nor tiny - they produce 50-500MW of power.
paranoidrobot 9y ago
Both Wind and Solar can in many cases be co-located with other land usage. Wind farms go great on agricultural farms - they tend to have wide open spaces, and the actual footprint of a tower can have minor impact upon the productivity of the field. Solar generation goes great on both residential and in particular - commercial buildings, over the tops of parking lots, etc - which has the dual effect of producing power and reducing the heating of the underlying building/parked cars (great for reducing the need for air conditioning) Your average suburban home has enough roof area to produce either all of, or a significant fraction of, it's own energy for a moderate household. Marginal-use land (hilly areas), coastal areas, and off-shore are also generally good areas for windfarms too.
PhantomGremlin 9y ago
Wind and solar need tons and tons of land to power our energy needs Elon Musk begs to differ. Here's something he said: “If you wanted to power the entire United States with solar panels, it would take a fairly small corner of Nevada or Texas or Utah; you only need about 100 miles by 100 miles of solar panels to power the entire United States,” Musk said at at the event in Rhode Island. “The batteries you need to store the energy, so you have 24/7 power, is 1 mile by 1 mile. One square-mile.” https://www.inverse.com/article/34239-how-many-solar-panels-to-power-the-usa https://www.inverse.com/article/34239-how-many-solar-panels-... something like an area the size of the US to power the world, per Steven Pinker Not to slag on Pinker, but Musk has proved himself to be a hell of a lot better visionary in the real world than most anyone else, and that includes pop authors. Somewhere else I saw a claim of 0.6% of US land area needed for US power needs. Even if it's 1%, no BFD. Let's assume that many areas of the world don't have as good solar irradiance as the USA. So maybe it's 2% in some other places. Still, no BFD. IMO the biggest problem with current nuclear is that it's run by utility companies. Those places aren't staffed by the world's brightest bulbs (heh heh). Allowing morons like that to build and manage nuclear plants is akin to allowing toddlers to play with live hand grenades. Most of the time they don't pull the pin, but when they do the results aren't pretty. PV solar is simplicity itself. No moving parts. Linear economies of scale: 2x the panels means 2x the cost and 2x the power. OTOH Southern Co. is now saying that the two nuclear reactors they are trying to complete will cost more than $25 billion. https://www.myajc.com/business/southern-says-vogtle-costs-exceed-25b/mvP3M8H3Db3Kw4RNMB2n0O/ https://www.myajc.com/business/southern-says-vogtle-costs-ex... Oops.

ThomPete 9y ago

There is no exponential when it comes to renewables. The only source of energy we have that provides exponential is nuclear but unfortunately, there is a lot of pushback although it's both greener and provides more energy than wind and solar can ever do. Furthermore, while they are renewable to they are also unreliable and need to have backup sources which makes them unfit as a enegy base. Remove the subsidies and you will see just how problematic they are. And then we haven't even looked at the problem with producing them, maintaining them etc. http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/topics/encyclopedia/solar/ http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/topics/encyclopedia/so...