4 ms·

> Solar and wind are economical, so now the biggest issue is scaling them up. I appreciate your passion and desire to fix our planet. But am I the only one who

> Solar and wind are economical, so now the biggest issue is scaling them up. I appreciate your passion and desire to fix our planet. But am I the only one who thinks this is the biggest distraction to solving the energy problems of today and the next 100 years? It is just very difficult to get solar to produce the type of energy the world needs for the next 100 years. And it’s the 21st century — its embarrassing that we are talking about wind energy! Simply put, we need nuclear power. We need to spend more time and energy trying to innovate on nuclear energy. That’s what is needed to support the power needs of 10 billion people who will have the energy demands of a modern western nation today. Solar and wind will just not cut it. See this talk at NeurIPS 2017 https://nips.cc/Conferences/2017/Schedule?showEvent=8729 https://nips.cc/Conferences/2017/Schedule?showEvent=8729 https://youtu.be/HL60wgrT67k https://youtu.be/HL60wgrT67k

toomuchtodo 8y ago
Nuclear is never going to happen, ever, due to a combination of issues (cost, regulation, liability, waste disposal and reprocessing). China is throwing in the towel on most of it's nuclear power plants [1]. I am deeply disappointed you dismiss wind and solar. They're extremely cheap (~2-4 cents/kwh at utility scale), require very little permitting to deploy, and fail safely. You're limited solely by how fast you can churn out PV panels, wind turbines, and get those components installed. Enough sunlight falls on the Earth in 30 minutes to power humanity for a year. The potential is there, and scaling is orders of magnitude more simple with renewables than nuclear. >90% of new generation in the US along each year are renewables. Coal fired plants are decomissioning decades earlier than predicted. Not even natural gas is as profitable as expected in some markets (Texas) due to how much wind power has been generated. 150+ GWac of new solar generation is planned to be online within the next five years in the US [2]. It would take two decades to replace all fossil generation with wind and solar. Faster if we taxed carbon and poured that money into renewables and battery storage. Nothing fancy required. Anyone can be trained to install solar panels, on rooftops or on ground mounts. [1] https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612564/chinas-losing-its-taste-for-nuclear-power-thats-bad-news/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612564/chinas-losing-its-... (China’s losing its taste for nuclear power. That’s bad news.) [2] https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2019/01/01/solar-tsunami/ https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2019/01/01/solar-tsunami/
- vowelless 8y ago
  Watch https://youtu.be/HL60wgrT67k https://youtu.be/HL60wgrT67k and then give me your thoughts. I am curious to hear them.
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    Quick comments from skimming the video: * Speaker shows slide showing power demand increasing sharply into the future. This doesn't square with first world historical electrical demand growth data, and future growth is going to be a function of how quickly the third world develops. Aging first world countries will use less power, China's economy is rapidly slowing, India has an enormous effort to move to solar at the moment [1] [2], and Africa is a wildcard. * Speaker states that renewables can't provide industrial heat. This is false; there are several methods through which you can obtain industrial heat without fossil fuels [3]. * Speaker states that renewables can't compete with paid off fossil fuel plants. This is false; renewables are already cheaper than continuing to run existing sunk cost thermal generators [4] [5]. * Speaker appears to be advocating for fusion as a viable technology to solve climate change when no production commercial fusion generation technology exists. [1] https://qz.com/india/1519929/india-will-add-a-record-level-of-solar-power-capacity-in-2019/ https://qz.com/india/1519929/india-will-add-a-record-level-o... [2] https://qz.com/india/1475736/india-is-now-a-world-leader-in-renewable-energy/ https://qz.com/india/1475736/india-is-now-a-world-leader-in-... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_heat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_heat [4] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/its-now-cheaper-to-build-a-new-wind-farm-than-to-keep-a-coal-plant-running/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/its-now-cheaper-to-build-a-new-... [5] https://www.utilitydive.com/news/even-in-indiana-new-renewables-are-cheaper-than-existing-coal-plants/540242/ https://www.utilitydive.com/news/even-in-indiana-new-renewab...
    - vowelless 8y ago
      This is what happens when you skim a 48 min talk in 3 minutes ... > * Speaker appears to be advocating for fusion as a viable technology to solve climate change when no production commercial fusion generation technology exists. You missed the part where he addresses this. This was the point of his talk -- work on fusion. > * Speaker states that renewables can't compete with paid off fossil fuel plants. This is false; renewables are already cheaper than continuing to run existing sunk cost thermal generators [4] [5]. Did you miss the 40% cutoff point explained in the video?
diafygi 8y ago
Hawaii just signed some solar + storage contracts for $0.11/kwh. That's well below any current or even projected next-gen nuclear price points for at least 20 years. And storage is on target to half its costs or more in the next few years. I guess I simply haven't seen any indication that nuclear can catch up and compete on price, so it's hard to see investors or utilities getting behind nuclear anytime soon. https://www.utilitydive.com/news/hawaii-co-op-signs-deal-for-solarstorage-project-at-11kwh/433744/ https://www.utilitydive.com/news/hawaii-co-op-signs-deal-for...
crushcrashcrush 8y ago
We should have 5x the number of nuclear plants we have now. Missed opportunity!
mikeash 8y ago
One could argue that nuclear is a huge distraction to solving our problems with solar and wind. I actually think more nuclear power would be great, but I don’t think it’s very realistic politically.
- 8bitsrule 8y ago
  Nor economically... it's very expensive, from cradle to grave, and far beyond (decommissioning and waste storage reaching out for centuries). Solar and wind have zero fuel costs (before mechanical/electronic conversion), have already proven to be very competitive, and can be quickly manufactured and installed (months, not decades). And they create lots of jobs. I've heard about promising new, safer nuke tech for decades. So far, no proof in the pudding. Solar and wind tech were deliberately held back, politically, for decades. Too bad, we would be in much less trouble if that hadn't happened.
  - mikeash 8y ago
    I don’t think it’s sensible to simultaneously argue that renewables are cheaper and create a lot of jobs. Jobs are the main expense, so it’s one or the other.
    - toomuchtodo 8y ago
      I don't agree. While ongoing maintenance requires little labor for wind and solar, there are at least 400k US workers currently employed installing wind turbines and solar panels (rooftop and utility scale). That work will eventually run out, but it'll be years, if not decades before enough solar, wind, and other electrical infrastructure has been installed and upgraded to replace all fossil generation. It's as big, as if not bigger, than America's World War 2 efforts.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

toomuchtodo 8y ago

Nuclear is never going to happen, ever, due to a combination of issues (cost, regulation, liability, waste disposal and reprocessing). China is throwing in the towel on most of it's nuclear power plants [1]. I am deeply disappointed you dismiss wind and solar. They're extremely cheap (~2-4 cents/kwh at utility scale), require very little permitting to deploy, and fail safely. You're limited solely by how fast you can churn out PV panels, wind turbines, and get those components installed. Enough sunlight falls on the Earth in 30 minutes to power humanity for a year. The potential is there, and scaling is orders of magnitude more simple with renewables than nuclear. >90% of new generation in the US along each year are renewables. Coal fired plants are decomissioning decades earlier than predicted. Not even natural gas is as profitable as expected in some markets (Texas) due to how much wind power has been generated. 150+ GWac of new solar generation is planned to be online within the next five years in the US [2]. It would take two decades to replace all fossil generation with wind and solar. Faster if we taxed carbon and poured that money into renewables and battery storage. Nothing fancy required. Anyone can be trained to install solar panels, on rooftops or on ground mounts. [1] https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612564/chinas-losing-its-taste-for-nuclear-power-thats-bad-news/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612564/chinas-losing-its-... (China’s losing its taste for nuclear power. That’s bad news.) [2] https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2019/01/01/solar-tsunami/ https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2019/01/01/solar-tsunami/

vowelless 8y ago
Watch https://youtu.be/HL60wgrT67k https://youtu.be/HL60wgrT67k and then give me your thoughts. I am curious to hear them.
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  Quick comments from skimming the video: * Speaker shows slide showing power demand increasing sharply into the future. This doesn't square with first world historical electrical demand growth data, and future growth is going to be a function of how quickly the third world develops. Aging first world countries will use less power, China's economy is rapidly slowing, India has an enormous effort to move to solar at the moment [1] [2], and Africa is a wildcard. * Speaker states that renewables can't provide industrial heat. This is false; there are several methods through which you can obtain industrial heat without fossil fuels [3]. * Speaker states that renewables can't compete with paid off fossil fuel plants. This is false; renewables are already cheaper than continuing to run existing sunk cost thermal generators [4] [5]. * Speaker appears to be advocating for fusion as a viable technology to solve climate change when no production commercial fusion generation technology exists. [1] https://qz.com/india/1519929/india-will-add-a-record-level-of-solar-power-capacity-in-2019/ https://qz.com/india/1519929/india-will-add-a-record-level-o... [2] https://qz.com/india/1475736/india-is-now-a-world-leader-in-renewable-energy/ https://qz.com/india/1475736/india-is-now-a-world-leader-in-... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_heat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_heat [4] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/its-now-cheaper-to-build-a-new-wind-farm-than-to-keep-a-coal-plant-running/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/its-now-cheaper-to-build-a-new-... [5] https://www.utilitydive.com/news/even-in-indiana-new-renewables-are-cheaper-than-existing-coal-plants/540242/ https://www.utilitydive.com/news/even-in-indiana-new-renewab...
  - vowelless 8y ago
    This is what happens when you skim a 48 min talk in 3 minutes ... > * Speaker appears to be advocating for fusion as a viable technology to solve climate change when no production commercial fusion generation technology exists. You missed the part where he addresses this. This was the point of his talk -- work on fusion. > * Speaker states that renewables can't compete with paid off fossil fuel plants. This is false; renewables are already cheaper than continuing to run existing sunk cost thermal generators [4] [5]. Did you miss the 40% cutoff point explained in the video?

diafygi 8y ago

Hawaii just signed some solar + storage contracts for $0.11/kwh. That's well below any current or even projected next-gen nuclear price points for at least 20 years. And storage is on target to half its costs or more in the next few years. I guess I simply haven't seen any indication that nuclear can catch up and compete on price, so it's hard to see investors or utilities getting behind nuclear anytime soon. https://www.utilitydive.com/news/hawaii-co-op-signs-deal-for-solarstorage-project-at-11kwh/433744/ https://www.utilitydive.com/news/hawaii-co-op-signs-deal-for...

crushcrashcrush 8y ago

We should have 5x the number of nuclear plants we have now. Missed opportunity!

mikeash 8y ago

One could argue that nuclear is a huge distraction to solving our problems with solar and wind. I actually think more nuclear power would be great, but I don’t think it’s very realistic politically.

8bitsrule 8y ago
Nor economically... it's very expensive, from cradle to grave, and far beyond (decommissioning and waste storage reaching out for centuries). Solar and wind have zero fuel costs (before mechanical/electronic conversion), have already proven to be very competitive, and can be quickly manufactured and installed (months, not decades). And they create lots of jobs. I've heard about promising new, safer nuke tech for decades. So far, no proof in the pudding. Solar and wind tech were deliberately held back, politically, for decades. Too bad, we would be in much less trouble if that hadn't happened.
- mikeash 8y ago
  I don’t think it’s sensible to simultaneously argue that renewables are cheaper and create a lot of jobs. Jobs are the main expense, so it’s one or the other.
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    I don't agree. While ongoing maintenance requires little labor for wind and solar, there are at least 400k US workers currently employed installing wind turbines and solar panels (rooftop and utility scale). That work will eventually run out, but it'll be years, if not decades before enough solar, wind, and other electrical infrastructure has been installed and upgraded to replace all fossil generation. It's as big, as if not bigger, than America's World War 2 efforts.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]