5 ms·

arguing the pros and cons of alternatives absent the timeline is false framing. the question is not what can solar and batteries do some day, the question is w

arguing the pros and cons of alternatives absent the timeline is false framing. the question is not what can solar and batteries do some day, the question is what can we do to drive emissions to zero by ~2050. solar and batteries alone cannot do that.

AtlasBarfed 8y ago
Yes! There's wind! And pumping water up a mountain as storage. I'm a fan of LFTR reactors and similar new designs, but the writing is on the wall for nuclear power. Alternative energy shot by it. I still think we should invest in Thorium reactors at the state level, but solar/wind energy has won.
- pyrale 8y ago
  Countries in Europe have saturated their hydro potential, and aside for a few exceptions, it's far from giving enough storage. Examples like Iceland and Norway are nice, but most countries can not use them. On the other hand, e.g. France and Sweden have driven their co2 emissions down without such natural advantages.
threeseed 8y ago
Sure. Solar and batteries alone cannot do that. But solar, batteries, wind, thermal, hydro, gas etc all connected via continent wide digital grids definitely can. And it's the option that nicely avoids the NIMBY problem you get with nuclear.
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  Indeed. There are countries already at 100% zero carbon for electrical generation through the use of solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal: https://www.electricitymap.org/?wind=false&solar=false&page=map https://www.electricitymap.org/?wind=false&solar=false&page=... There is no reason we cannot rapidly expand on this with additional solar and wind, as well as batteries as the cost drops.
  - acidburnNSA 8y ago
    Notably, check out Ontario (96% low carbon, 36% renewable) and France (91% low carbon, 13% renewable!?) But how!? The answer is nuclear power plants. Don't forget also that electricity is roughly 40% of energy usage for most people, the rest being heating and transportation. Those are very fossil dominated so even though you see green here, there's a huge huge way to go.
    - toomuchtodo 8y ago
      > But how!? The answer is nuclear power plants. Legacy nuclear bridging the gap is an acceptable solution. As I've mentioned elsewhere in this thread, nuclear simply takes too long to build and is too costly (when compared to renewables as low as 2 cents/kwh and deployment times measured in months, not years or up to a decade). China is installing 40-50GW of solar per year; the world in aggregate installs about 100GW annually. The largest nuclear power plant in the US (Palo Verde in Arizona) has a nameplate capacity just shy of 4GW; assuming you need 16GW of solar to replace such a generator due to 25% capacity factor, that is an install time of just around a year). > Don't forget also that electricity is roughly 40% of energy usage for most people, the rest being heating and transportation. Those are very fossil dominated so even though you see green here, there's a huge huge way to go. The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory did a study about a decade ago [1] that ~73% of light vehicles could move over to the electrical grid with existing generation capacity. EVs are a perfect match for intermittent renewables generation, as they can charge when the sun is shining during the day, or charge at night when the wind is blowing. I concede heating has a long way to go with air source heat pumps, insulation, and other energy saving measures. "This initial paper estimates the regional percentages of the energy requirements for the U.S. LDV stock that could be supported by the existing infrastructure, based on the 12 modified North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) regions, as of 2002, and taking into account congestion in regional transmission and distribution systems. For the United States as a whole, 84% of U.S. cars, pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles (SUVs) could be supported by the existing infrastructure, although the local percentages vary by region. Using the light duty vehicle fleet (LDV) classification, that includes cars, pickup trucks, SUVs, and vans, the technical potential is 73%. This has a gasoline displacement potential of 6.5 million barrels of oil equivalent per day, or 52% of the nation’s oil imports. Existing nuclear plants should be kept operational as long as feasible (from a safety perspective), but the writing is on the wall. [1] https://www.ferc.gov/about/com-mem/5-24-07-technical-analy-wellinghoff.pdf https://www.ferc.gov/about/com-mem/5-24-07-technical-analy-w...
- acidburnNSA 8y ago
  There's a pretty big NIMBY problem with HV transmission lines in the USA as well, of which many thousands of km are needed for the energy system you're dreaming of. Also many of those sources have seasonal variations that the grid doesn't solve. The sun goes down at 4:30pm in many parts of the USA in winter, at the time when heating energy peaks. It's easy to underestimate how much energy is needed to heat the midwest in winter. China has a related problem but people are dying from the coal emissions. Their solution? Scaled-up TRIGA reactors (typically used for research) that provide district heating, not electricity. Brilliant! [1] [1] http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/CNNC-completes-design-of-district-heating-reactor http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/CNNC-completes-de...
greglindahl 8y ago
People have been under-predicting what solar and batteries can do for decades... just look at the actual cost and production curves vs predictions. Also, don't forget wind and other storage.

AtlasBarfed 8y ago

Yes! There's wind! And pumping water up a mountain as storage. I'm a fan of LFTR reactors and similar new designs, but the writing is on the wall for nuclear power. Alternative energy shot by it. I still think we should invest in Thorium reactors at the state level, but solar/wind energy has won.

pyrale 8y ago
Countries in Europe have saturated their hydro potential, and aside for a few exceptions, it's far from giving enough storage. Examples like Iceland and Norway are nice, but most countries can not use them. On the other hand, e.g. France and Sweden have driven their co2 emissions down without such natural advantages.

threeseed 8y ago

Sure. Solar and batteries alone cannot do that. But solar, batteries, wind, thermal, hydro, gas etc all connected via continent wide digital grids definitely can. And it's the option that nicely avoids the NIMBY problem you get with nuclear.

toomuchtodo 8y ago
Indeed. There are countries already at 100% zero carbon for electrical generation through the use of solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal: https://www.electricitymap.org/?wind=false&solar=false&page=map https://www.electricitymap.org/?wind=false&solar=false&page=... There is no reason we cannot rapidly expand on this with additional solar and wind, as well as batteries as the cost drops.
- acidburnNSA 8y ago
  Notably, check out Ontario (96% low carbon, 36% renewable) and France (91% low carbon, 13% renewable!?) But how!? The answer is nuclear power plants. Don't forget also that electricity is roughly 40% of energy usage for most people, the rest being heating and transportation. Those are very fossil dominated so even though you see green here, there's a huge huge way to go.
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    > But how!? The answer is nuclear power plants. Legacy nuclear bridging the gap is an acceptable solution. As I've mentioned elsewhere in this thread, nuclear simply takes too long to build and is too costly (when compared to renewables as low as 2 cents/kwh and deployment times measured in months, not years or up to a decade). China is installing 40-50GW of solar per year; the world in aggregate installs about 100GW annually. The largest nuclear power plant in the US (Palo Verde in Arizona) has a nameplate capacity just shy of 4GW; assuming you need 16GW of solar to replace such a generator due to 25% capacity factor, that is an install time of just around a year). > Don't forget also that electricity is roughly 40% of energy usage for most people, the rest being heating and transportation. Those are very fossil dominated so even though you see green here, there's a huge huge way to go. The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory did a study about a decade ago [1] that ~73% of light vehicles could move over to the electrical grid with existing generation capacity. EVs are a perfect match for intermittent renewables generation, as they can charge when the sun is shining during the day, or charge at night when the wind is blowing. I concede heating has a long way to go with air source heat pumps, insulation, and other energy saving measures. "This initial paper estimates the regional percentages of the energy requirements for the U.S. LDV stock that could be supported by the existing infrastructure, based on the 12 modified North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) regions, as of 2002, and taking into account congestion in regional transmission and distribution systems. For the United States as a whole, 84% of U.S. cars, pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles (SUVs) could be supported by the existing infrastructure, although the local percentages vary by region. Using the light duty vehicle fleet (LDV) classification, that includes cars, pickup trucks, SUVs, and vans, the technical potential is 73%. This has a gasoline displacement potential of 6.5 million barrels of oil equivalent per day, or 52% of the nation’s oil imports. Existing nuclear plants should be kept operational as long as feasible (from a safety perspective), but the writing is on the wall. [1] https://www.ferc.gov/about/com-mem/5-24-07-technical-analy-wellinghoff.pdf https://www.ferc.gov/about/com-mem/5-24-07-technical-analy-w...
acidburnNSA 8y ago
There's a pretty big NIMBY problem with HV transmission lines in the USA as well, of which many thousands of km are needed for the energy system you're dreaming of. Also many of those sources have seasonal variations that the grid doesn't solve. The sun goes down at 4:30pm in many parts of the USA in winter, at the time when heating energy peaks. It's easy to underestimate how much energy is needed to heat the midwest in winter. China has a related problem but people are dying from the coal emissions. Their solution? Scaled-up TRIGA reactors (typically used for research) that provide district heating, not electricity. Brilliant! [1] [1] http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/CNNC-completes-design-of-district-heating-reactor http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/CNNC-completes-de...

greglindahl 8y ago

People have been under-predicting what solar and batteries can do for decades... just look at the actual cost and production curves vs predictions. Also, don't forget wind and other storage.