7 ms·

Can you please define doesn’t scale well? I work in this industry, wind farms have gone from <50MW, to 200-300MW to 1.2GW in the last 10yrs, with 1.8-2.4GW in t

by gehsty 8y ago

Can you please define doesn’t scale well? I work in this industry, wind farms have gone from <50MW, to 200-300MW to 1.2GW in the last 10yrs, with 1.8-2.4GW in the very near pipeline, all whilst going from huge subsidies to the latest auction (in the Netherlands) being awarded to a zero subsidy bid, with rumour of their being negative auctions for for future rounds... For reference the new nuclear in the UK (Hinkley 3.2gw) is receiving a £93/mwh subsidy, offshore wind uk project Hornsea two (1.8gw)is going to get £72mwh, and the Netherlands projects are receiving a zero subsidy for ~750mw projects. It is not going to solve our energy crisis but there are virtually no negatives to building them now, if you have a coastline you can have zero subsidy clean energy in the next 5-10yrs.

ThomPete 8y ago
The amount of energy needed will increase even though we become better and better at optimizing the individual items power usage. In other words, wind and solar are linear solutions to exponential problems. I have nothing against wind or solar but the idea that wind and solar will be able to solve our energy problems is based on a political mandate, not on science or any realistic evaluation of the energy needs of the world. Wind can't run as long as nuclear can without maintenance and the cost is also going to be higher to maintain because of the large area it occupies. The cost of Nuclear is suffering under the lack of political support compared to alternatives. Furthermore, alternatives are not without problems: "The first thing he discovered is that solar panels, in fact, contain significant quantities of toxic metals like lead, chromium, and cadmium — known carcinogens — and yet no nation outside of Europe has a plan to safely dispose of them. Many could end up in waste dumps in poor communities in Asia and Africa and poison drinking water supplies. How much solar waste is there? About 300 times more per unit of energy than there is from nuclear power. As a result, if solar and nuclear waste from producing the same amount of electricity were stacked on football fields, the nuclear waste would reach the height of the Leaning Tower of Pisa (52 meters), while the solar waste would reach the height of two Mt. Everest (16 km)." http://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2017/6/22/the-case-for-100-percent-renewables-rested-on-a-lie-heres-what-it-teaches-us-about-energy-and-the-environment http://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2017/6/22/the-case... And here is a study debunking the idea of alternatives as a realistic alternative (I am not saying you claim they are but that was my main point) http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/06/16/1610381114.full http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/06/16/1610381114.full
- gehsty 8y ago
  You need a mix, for now that will include solar, coal, nuclear and wind. I think in the long run this will change to renewable sources + interconnected grids (it’s always sunny / windy / geothermal / waves) somewhere. I’m generally pessimistic on fusion, but then it would cost me my job so I’m bound to be, but is always feels like it’s “50yrs away”
  - ThomPete 8y ago
    Yes we need a mix but right now we need more (positive) focus on nuclear (and other forms of more exploratory but potentially civilization altering technologies) as it's been almost banned out of existence in the US and Europe. The current discusison is not based on what's optimal technologically but politically and thats in not small part due to some the unfortunate overreach of parts of the environmental organizations IMO. I am all for tough legislation but what the current toxic political climate has made it almost impossible to discuss this in any proper matter. Even me posting on this lead to multiple downvotes. Thats just absurd.
    - gehsty 8y ago
      Agreed on the absurd downvotes! I think nuclear is quite bad, we've got to transport / process / store nuclear waste for thousands of years. We should probably do anything we can to avoid producing this stuff. I grew up near where a lot of the worlds nuclear waste is processed and while it does make for lots of good jobs, that last many many lifetimes, I just can't get onboard with new nuclear when it is cheaper to build interconnected grids + renewables (in the UK at least).
      - ThomPete 8y ago
        said in all sincerity. I would urge you to spend a little more time looking into nuclear you would be quite surprised of how wrong your view of it is. New reactors can use used uranium which makes the problem even smaller. On top of that, the actual footprint needed to store it is absurdly small if we even had to do that. In other words Nuclear is the safest greenest form of energy we have (greener than wind or solar etc) Here is a good primer on some of the myths you probably believe in. But don't take my word or even the artcles word for it. Investigate and I am pretty sure you will soon see that your belief about nuclear is misguided. https://thoughtscapism.com/2017/11/04/nuclear-waste-ideas-vs-reality/ https://thoughtscapism.com/2017/11/04/nuclear-waste-ideas-vs...

by gehsty 8y ago

ThomPete 8y ago

The amount of energy needed will increase even though we become better and better at optimizing the individual items power usage. In other words, wind and solar are linear solutions to exponential problems. I have nothing against wind or solar but the idea that wind and solar will be able to solve our energy problems is based on a political mandate, not on science or any realistic evaluation of the energy needs of the world. Wind can't run as long as nuclear can without maintenance and the cost is also going to be higher to maintain because of the large area it occupies. The cost of Nuclear is suffering under the lack of political support compared to alternatives. Furthermore, alternatives are not without problems: "The first thing he discovered is that solar panels, in fact, contain significant quantities of toxic metals like lead, chromium, and cadmium — known carcinogens — and yet no nation outside of Europe has a plan to safely dispose of them. Many could end up in waste dumps in poor communities in Asia and Africa and poison drinking water supplies. How much solar waste is there? About 300 times more per unit of energy than there is from nuclear power. As a result, if solar and nuclear waste from producing the same amount of electricity were stacked on football fields, the nuclear waste would reach the height of the Leaning Tower of Pisa (52 meters), while the solar waste would reach the height of two Mt. Everest (16 km)." http://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2017/6/22/the-case-for-100-percent-renewables-rested-on-a-lie-heres-what-it-teaches-us-about-energy-and-the-environment http://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2017/6/22/the-case... And here is a study debunking the idea of alternatives as a realistic alternative (I am not saying you claim they are but that was my main point) http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/06/16/1610381114.full http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/06/16/1610381114.full

gehsty 8y ago
You need a mix, for now that will include solar, coal, nuclear and wind. I think in the long run this will change to renewable sources + interconnected grids (it’s always sunny / windy / geothermal / waves) somewhere. I’m generally pessimistic on fusion, but then it would cost me my job so I’m bound to be, but is always feels like it’s “50yrs away”
- ThomPete 8y ago
  Yes we need a mix but right now we need more (positive) focus on nuclear (and other forms of more exploratory but potentially civilization altering technologies) as it's been almost banned out of existence in the US and Europe. The current discusison is not based on what's optimal technologically but politically and thats in not small part due to some the unfortunate overreach of parts of the environmental organizations IMO. I am all for tough legislation but what the current toxic political climate has made it almost impossible to discuss this in any proper matter. Even me posting on this lead to multiple downvotes. Thats just absurd.
  - gehsty 8y ago
    Agreed on the absurd downvotes! I think nuclear is quite bad, we've got to transport / process / store nuclear waste for thousands of years. We should probably do anything we can to avoid producing this stuff. I grew up near where a lot of the worlds nuclear waste is processed and while it does make for lots of good jobs, that last many many lifetimes, I just can't get onboard with new nuclear when it is cheaper to build interconnected grids + renewables (in the UK at least).
    - ThomPete 8y ago
      said in all sincerity. I would urge you to spend a little more time looking into nuclear you would be quite surprised of how wrong your view of it is. New reactors can use used uranium which makes the problem even smaller. On top of that, the actual footprint needed to store it is absurdly small if we even had to do that. In other words Nuclear is the safest greenest form of energy we have (greener than wind or solar etc) Here is a good primer on some of the myths you probably believe in. But don't take my word or even the artcles word for it. Investigate and I am pretty sure you will soon see that your belief about nuclear is misguided. https://thoughtscapism.com/2017/11/04/nuclear-waste-ideas-vs-reality/ https://thoughtscapism.com/2017/11/04/nuclear-waste-ideas-vs...