4 ms·

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?
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    I am not arguing against working towards fusion and funding it with R&D dollars. I am arguing against using it as a Hail Mary when it isn't proven and renewables are. > Did you miss the 40% cutoff point explained in the video? I did not miss it [1]. The speaker is incorrect. Solar and wind are already cheaper than fossil fuels beyond that point (I included citations above regarding that point). Renewables have gotten that cheap. This is good, as it strands fossil generators as stranded assets, and forces investment in battery storage (which is necessary not just for energy storage, but also grid services such as frequency response, as demonstrated by the Hornsdale Power Reserve [built by Tesla]). [1] https://youtu.be/HL60wgrT67k?t=1162 https://youtu.be/HL60wgrT67k?t=1162
mturmon 8y ago
I also skimmed the video. I felt it to be superficial in dismissing solar, which others nearby have pointed out has costs /kWh that are comparable to fossil fuel. The arguments presented for dismissing solar were non-quantitative and based on abstract usage-vs-time curves. This is not a sufficient depth of analysis for this problem. It serves to motivate a talk on fusion to a non-specialist audience, but not to decide a societal resource problem. It's preposterous to say, "we can't solve the solar energy storage problem, so instead let's perform research on using neural networks to control fusion reactions". The kind of depth I'm after is a National Academies style report. There was a recent one on fusion energy, which is apparently being used to provide guidance for US fusion research. According to the report [1] -- "The four top-tier [new capabilities] identified by the panel were: advanced algorithms, high critical temperature superconductors, advanced materials, and novel technologies for tritium fuel cycle control." This report does not, however, give tradeoffs among different generation mechanisms. [1] http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=25331 http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?Rec... and follow to the 250 page pdf.
gammateam 8y ago
Mfw when someone casually asks you to watch a predictably 48 minute video about something only they are interested in Tl;dw?

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?
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  I am not arguing against working towards fusion and funding it with R&D dollars. I am arguing against using it as a Hail Mary when it isn't proven and renewables are. > Did you miss the 40% cutoff point explained in the video? I did not miss it [1]. The speaker is incorrect. Solar and wind are already cheaper than fossil fuels beyond that point (I included citations above regarding that point). Renewables have gotten that cheap. This is good, as it strands fossil generators as stranded assets, and forces investment in battery storage (which is necessary not just for energy storage, but also grid services such as frequency response, as demonstrated by the Hornsdale Power Reserve [built by Tesla]). [1] https://youtu.be/HL60wgrT67k?t=1162 https://youtu.be/HL60wgrT67k?t=1162

mturmon 8y ago

I also skimmed the video. I felt it to be superficial in dismissing solar, which others nearby have pointed out has costs /kWh that are comparable to fossil fuel. The arguments presented for dismissing solar were non-quantitative and based on abstract usage-vs-time curves. This is not a sufficient depth of analysis for this problem. It serves to motivate a talk on fusion to a non-specialist audience, but not to decide a societal resource problem. It's preposterous to say, "we can't solve the solar energy storage problem, so instead let's perform research on using neural networks to control fusion reactions". The kind of depth I'm after is a National Academies style report. There was a recent one on fusion energy, which is apparently being used to provide guidance for US fusion research. According to the report [1] -- "The four top-tier [new capabilities] identified by the panel were: advanced algorithms, high critical temperature superconductors, advanced materials, and novel technologies for tritium fuel cycle control." This report does not, however, give tradeoffs among different generation mechanisms. [1] http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=25331 http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?Rec... and follow to the 250 page pdf.

gammateam 8y ago

Mfw when someone casually asks you to watch a predictably 48 minute video about something only they are interested in Tl;dw?