4 ms·

It's centuries away. So much legacy technology and machinery, buildings, installations, infrastructure not to mention the fact that neither wind nor solar and

It's centuries away. So much legacy technology and machinery, buildings, installations, infrastructure not to mention the fact that neither wind nor solar and not even hydro are anywhere close to being able to provide that it's only a few percentages of world energy usage and have upper limits. In my view the only real fundamental progress when it comes to energy, within sight (and it's still far away if ever) is Thorium and Fusion. Furthermore the externalities of things like wind and solar isn't calculated today and would make two things very clear. You can't have wind and solar without the backup of oil/nuclear/coal and they will never be able to provide us with enough energy to meet our needs to not talk about meeting our future needs (which will be many times higher than it is today) I am all for green energy but i share your pessimism.

headcanon 7y ago
At current rate of adoption it may be centuries, but I'm willing to bet that by the end of this century (possibly earlier) there will be a great deal more public pressure to revamp the underlying infrastructure. We could do it in a few decades if we decided to spend the capital on it, its ultimately a question of political willpower. I do agree that fusion would be the ultimate form of power generation and would have the least impact on the current grid. But regardless, the future of energy generation is in diversity of sources.
- ThomPete 7y ago
  There already is pressure today to do that. However, I am unconvinced it will actually get done on any significant scale unless there will be fundamental improvements with regards to energy sources. Otherwise, fossil fuels are simply going to be too valuable in no small part due to its multiple applications which none of the other types of energy provides. Otherwise, it will come down to economics. So I agree we will diversify but fossil fuels aren't going anywhere anytime soon.
  - headcanon 7y ago
    Honestly I don't even think it would be as complicated as all that. Its all down to what becomes more valuable. Here is a breakdown of energy generation in the US: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3 63% of power generation comes from "fossil fuels", but half of that comes from natural gas. If we focus purely on carbon emissions and ignore implications of fracking, natural gas can be considered "clean". Also assuming all renewables are zero-emission, this means roughly 30% of our power generation has the potential for carbon emissions. By simply instituting a carbon tax, or even requiring coal plants to sequester emissions would make burning coal expensive enough that other forms of power will become cheaper, and thus the market would align appropriately. These are things being talked about right now, so its not unrealistic. The coal lobby won't like this of course and will continue to push us away from that, but I believe in 50 years when Miami and New Orleans have turned into Venice and the new generation of people won't be working in coal, American conservatives, as well as other nations, will stop complaining about the coal industry so much. All that has to happen is a few percentage points in a certain direction and the machinations will start to work.
    - ThomPete 7y ago
      You are looking at electricity generation, not energy. Electricity production is a subset of energy and that's kind of my point. We get these rosy images of how far we are with renewables when in reality once you dig into it you realize we are nowhere near anything that can replace our current primarily fossil based system. We don't appreciate how much fossil fuels are making our lives more livable and how little alternatives add to this livability. I understand the potential CO2 emission risk etc, but we are safer because we use fossil fuels, not despite of it. And we are not just talking for energy here, we are talking plastic used in more or less any industry you can think of from healthcare to textiles to toys. We are talking for greasing, we use it for fertilizers which makes it possible for us to produce the amount of food we do etc. Which means that oil will play a very very very significant part of our lives for many centuries unless of course some completely new material shows up with as much versatility and application. And now that we are drilling for the oil anyway.... I understand that this isn't what we want to hear, but that's the reality and there isn't currently much of an alternative.
telchar 7y ago
Grid power distribution itself is barely more than a century old, and you think it will take several times that to adjust to a mix of different power sources, despite that being already well underway? On what basis?
- ThomPete 7y ago
  Because it's too expensive at the end of the day. The more wind/solar you build, the more backup from coal/nuclear/wind you will need. But the way to make us all better off is to make energy cheaper. There is a 1-1 correlation between energy usage and then rich, advanced, safe, clean and flourishing societies. Wind and solar will only go as far as the political goodwill will take them. They are IMO unfairly promoted and that will incur a cost on their fundamental ability to be a solid enough energy form IMO. They are great as plugins to the existing system but the idea that we should build a smart grid because of their inabilities to provide on demand is not sustainable at the end of the day. So my basis is based on part speculation, part knowing the limits and true cost of wind and solar and other alternatives. Only Fusion or Thorium or maybe if we are lucky, fuel cells, will be actual progress which will also be economically viable. But this idea of a giant mix all handles by a smart grid is the not how it's going to play out as the upside of the usual alternatives simply aren't enough to outweigh the downside of cost and complexity they will incur on society. But it's just my personal opinion of course. Each to their own.
  - solarkraft 7y ago
    > The more wind/solar you build, the more backup from coal/nuclear/wind you will need. The more road you build, the more rail you will need.

headcanon 7y ago

At current rate of adoption it may be centuries, but I'm willing to bet that by the end of this century (possibly earlier) there will be a great deal more public pressure to revamp the underlying infrastructure. We could do it in a few decades if we decided to spend the capital on it, its ultimately a question of political willpower. I do agree that fusion would be the ultimate form of power generation and would have the least impact on the current grid. But regardless, the future of energy generation is in diversity of sources.

ThomPete 7y ago
There already is pressure today to do that. However, I am unconvinced it will actually get done on any significant scale unless there will be fundamental improvements with regards to energy sources. Otherwise, fossil fuels are simply going to be too valuable in no small part due to its multiple applications which none of the other types of energy provides. Otherwise, it will come down to economics. So I agree we will diversify but fossil fuels aren't going anywhere anytime soon.
- headcanon 7y ago
  Honestly I don't even think it would be as complicated as all that. Its all down to what becomes more valuable. Here is a breakdown of energy generation in the US: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3 63% of power generation comes from "fossil fuels", but half of that comes from natural gas. If we focus purely on carbon emissions and ignore implications of fracking, natural gas can be considered "clean". Also assuming all renewables are zero-emission, this means roughly 30% of our power generation has the potential for carbon emissions. By simply instituting a carbon tax, or even requiring coal plants to sequester emissions would make burning coal expensive enough that other forms of power will become cheaper, and thus the market would align appropriately. These are things being talked about right now, so its not unrealistic. The coal lobby won't like this of course and will continue to push us away from that, but I believe in 50 years when Miami and New Orleans have turned into Venice and the new generation of people won't be working in coal, American conservatives, as well as other nations, will stop complaining about the coal industry so much. All that has to happen is a few percentage points in a certain direction and the machinations will start to work.
  - ThomPete 7y ago
    You are looking at electricity generation, not energy. Electricity production is a subset of energy and that's kind of my point. We get these rosy images of how far we are with renewables when in reality once you dig into it you realize we are nowhere near anything that can replace our current primarily fossil based system. We don't appreciate how much fossil fuels are making our lives more livable and how little alternatives add to this livability. I understand the potential CO2 emission risk etc, but we are safer because we use fossil fuels, not despite of it. And we are not just talking for energy here, we are talking plastic used in more or less any industry you can think of from healthcare to textiles to toys. We are talking for greasing, we use it for fertilizers which makes it possible for us to produce the amount of food we do etc. Which means that oil will play a very very very significant part of our lives for many centuries unless of course some completely new material shows up with as much versatility and application. And now that we are drilling for the oil anyway.... I understand that this isn't what we want to hear, but that's the reality and there isn't currently much of an alternative.

telchar 7y ago

Grid power distribution itself is barely more than a century old, and you think it will take several times that to adjust to a mix of different power sources, despite that being already well underway? On what basis?

ThomPete 7y ago
Because it's too expensive at the end of the day. The more wind/solar you build, the more backup from coal/nuclear/wind you will need. But the way to make us all better off is to make energy cheaper. There is a 1-1 correlation between energy usage and then rich, advanced, safe, clean and flourishing societies. Wind and solar will only go as far as the political goodwill will take them. They are IMO unfairly promoted and that will incur a cost on their fundamental ability to be a solid enough energy form IMO. They are great as plugins to the existing system but the idea that we should build a smart grid because of their inabilities to provide on demand is not sustainable at the end of the day. So my basis is based on part speculation, part knowing the limits and true cost of wind and solar and other alternatives. Only Fusion or Thorium or maybe if we are lucky, fuel cells, will be actual progress which will also be economically viable. But this idea of a giant mix all handles by a smart grid is the not how it's going to play out as the upside of the usual alternatives simply aren't enough to outweigh the downside of cost and complexity they will incur on society. But it's just my personal opinion of course. Each to their own.
- solarkraft 7y ago
  > The more wind/solar you build, the more backup from coal/nuclear/wind you will need. The more road you build, the more rail you will need.