4 ms·

Take a look at the consumption of various forms of energy globally in figure 1 of this wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption

by rotexo 8y ago

Take a look at the consumption of various forms of energy globally in figure 1 of this wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption#cite_note-BP-Review-2013-1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption#cite_... (sourced from BP's Statistical Review of World Energy https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy.html https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/stat...) Now look at some of the figures in this slide deck: https://www.svensktnaringsliv.se/Bilder_och_dokument/mattias-lantz_analysgruppenpdf_634627.html/BINARY/Mattias%20Lantz_Analysgruppen.pdf https://www.svensktnaringsliv.se/Bilder_och_dokument/mattias... (in particular, slide 3, showing rate of added generation/year for various countries, comparing nuclear to wind+solar+geo+bio energy, compared to the needed rate of addition of carbon-neutral energy to hit 2 deg C warming goals.) These data are also sourced from the BP statistical review and the World Bank. If you trust that information, evaluate for yourself whether or not we can reach 80% penetration of wind and solar in time to avoid anything short of catastrophic warming. If your response is to extrapolate current trends in cost reductions for wind and particularly solar, please bear in mind that there are no indefinite exponential growth processes in the real world where transfers of matter and energy are concerned, only processes that show logistic growth. And we can't necessarily predict when we'll reach the plateau phase of logistic growth. What I conclude from that, personally, is that we shouldn't gamble on continued trends in solar and wind adoption to get us to decarbonization.

hutzlibu 8y ago
So what is your conclusion? Bet on fusion? I would bet on nuclear, but in the long term indeed switch to solar + wind, starting now. Which is happening... at least the last.
- rotexo 8y ago
  My bet is on pursuing everything that gets us closer to decarbonization, but it appears there is the most potential in the immediate future for fission. The challenge there is of course economics, which is why I think we need a carbon tax to add the future impact of climate change into our accounting for various technologies.
Certhas 8y ago
Adding nuclear is more expensive than wind/solar _right now_. Not in a hypothetical future but as of this very moment. We know because the UK government has decided to subsidise a new nuclear power plant as a low carbon must run for the future. That is on track for generating electricity in 2025. So I'm not exactly buying the "added capacity per year" stats there as terribly relevant for now. China is ramping up investments in renewables (including crucial grid strengthening measures) and hasn't approved a nuclear power station in two years (as of beginning of this year, I haven't heard if it has resumed building them now). Again, I'm not ruling out that nuclear has a role to play. But most of the lobbying for nuclear seems to be based in an instinctive dislike of wind+solar rather than in facts. Nuclear is terribly expensive and there really is a waste problem (even if CO2 is clearly the more severe problem).
- rotexo 8y ago
  Honestly, I don’t even like nuclear power. I just see it’s track record in expanding availability of carbon neutral energy sources. To me, going all in on solar and wind and potentially running into scaling issues down the line after abandoning nuclear energy seems more risky than the waste issue in nuclear power. Also, as I noted in another reply, I think we need a carbon tax to correct our accounting for the different energy sources. After that, if we start lots of different experiments and find that there really are no issues scaling wind and solar, I will be overjoyed at being proven wrong.
  - Certhas 8y ago
    A global carbon tax in 1990 would have avoided a lot of the mess we find ourselves in. As it is we don't have the luxury of implementing one. Even something as weak as the Paris agreement hinges on one election in the US. A globally enforceable carbon tax is much much less feasible than universal cheap fusion power. That said, we are in the middle of the experiment you are talking about. Renewables are cheaper now than new nuclear, despite nuclear having received a massively larger amount of subsidies over the years, there are still many parts of the world that are building nuclear so it's not like we're losing the technology, but really, there doesn't currently seem to be a good reason for building new nuclear. Let me put it another way, a relatively small island like Ireland is going to be capable of going 100% wind/solar relatively soon. They are not strongly connected to the EU grid. Smaller disconnected islands already have gone 100% renewable. So we will have plenty [1] of test cases of increasing size as we ramp up renewables. Conveniently, electricity is also much more expensive on small islands, so it's also economical to test every technology you want to bring to maturity there first. If we find that beyond a certain size it doesn't work we'll have a decade of warning before we hit that wall with the big continental size grids. [1] 2200 EU Islands: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/energy-strategy-and-energy-union/clean-energy-eu-islands https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/energy-strategy-and-en...

by rotexo 8y ago

hutzlibu 8y ago

So what is your conclusion? Bet on fusion? I would bet on nuclear, but in the long term indeed switch to solar + wind, starting now. Which is happening... at least the last.

rotexo 8y ago
My bet is on pursuing everything that gets us closer to decarbonization, but it appears there is the most potential in the immediate future for fission. The challenge there is of course economics, which is why I think we need a carbon tax to add the future impact of climate change into our accounting for various technologies.

Certhas 8y ago

Adding nuclear is more expensive than wind/solar _right now_. Not in a hypothetical future but as of this very moment. We know because the UK government has decided to subsidise a new nuclear power plant as a low carbon must run for the future. That is on track for generating electricity in 2025. So I'm not exactly buying the "added capacity per year" stats there as terribly relevant for now. China is ramping up investments in renewables (including crucial grid strengthening measures) and hasn't approved a nuclear power station in two years (as of beginning of this year, I haven't heard if it has resumed building them now). Again, I'm not ruling out that nuclear has a role to play. But most of the lobbying for nuclear seems to be based in an instinctive dislike of wind+solar rather than in facts. Nuclear is terribly expensive and there really is a waste problem (even if CO2 is clearly the more severe problem).

rotexo 8y ago
Honestly, I don’t even like nuclear power. I just see it’s track record in expanding availability of carbon neutral energy sources. To me, going all in on solar and wind and potentially running into scaling issues down the line after abandoning nuclear energy seems more risky than the waste issue in nuclear power. Also, as I noted in another reply, I think we need a carbon tax to correct our accounting for the different energy sources. After that, if we start lots of different experiments and find that there really are no issues scaling wind and solar, I will be overjoyed at being proven wrong.
- Certhas 8y ago
  A global carbon tax in 1990 would have avoided a lot of the mess we find ourselves in. As it is we don't have the luxury of implementing one. Even something as weak as the Paris agreement hinges on one election in the US. A globally enforceable carbon tax is much much less feasible than universal cheap fusion power. That said, we are in the middle of the experiment you are talking about. Renewables are cheaper now than new nuclear, despite nuclear having received a massively larger amount of subsidies over the years, there are still many parts of the world that are building nuclear so it's not like we're losing the technology, but really, there doesn't currently seem to be a good reason for building new nuclear. Let me put it another way, a relatively small island like Ireland is going to be capable of going 100% wind/solar relatively soon. They are not strongly connected to the EU grid. Smaller disconnected islands already have gone 100% renewable. So we will have plenty [1] of test cases of increasing size as we ramp up renewables. Conveniently, electricity is also much more expensive on small islands, so it's also economical to test every technology you want to bring to maturity there first. If we find that beyond a certain size it doesn't work we'll have a decade of warning before we hit that wall with the big continental size grids. [1] 2200 EU Islands: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/energy-strategy-and-energy-union/clean-energy-eu-islands https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/energy-strategy-and-en...