4 ms·

> Given the rate of decline of cost of renewables, Don't mistake current trends for future prognosis. Even if costs are falling at the moment, there is no reas

by Ygg2 7y ago

> Given the rate of decline of cost of renewables, Don't mistake current trends for future prognosis. Even if costs are falling at the moment, there is no reason future fusion technology will be museumware. At worst we'll discover new data on plasma behavior. At best we have a possible tech for colonizing the Milky Way. > I don't think DEMO is ever getting built, It's ok. I don't think we'll transfer to renewables before it's too late anyway. > The very low levelized price of renewables means there's a lot of economic headroom to deal with intermittency. So you're saying that economics will change grid design? That grids designed for single way of transmitting energy will somehow reconfigure to allow consumers to stream energy to the source?

pfdietz 7y ago
The trend of decreasing costs for PV has followed an empirical experience curve for decades, with an exponent of about -0.2 (giving cost as a function of cumulative production). There are perennially assertions this trend has ended, but those assertions have never been correct. Is there any reason to think they will be correct now? I assert no: PV modules are still well away from the costs of the material and energy inputs. I'll add that fusion economic studies have to posit large learning effects as well, so the "N-th of a Kind" plant is much cheaper than the first. And there, this assumption is dubious, since the closest technology (fission) has not shown good learning effects. That's why fission is failing now -- any technology that doesn't improve eventually gets killed as the competition does. > It's ok. I don't think we'll transfer to renewables before it's too late anyway. And you think the transition to fusion would be FASTER? My mind boggles at your double think. > So you're saying that economics will change grid design? That grids designed for single way of transmitting energy will somehow reconfigure to allow consumers to stream energy to the source? It's bizarre you think dealing with intermittency would require impossible, or even particularly difficult, changes. If you notice, grids are already becoming smarter, with power markets dispatching on short term prices. Storage and dispatchable demand fit nicely into this system. The market is going to force things in the right direction, which is renewables/storage and not high cost baseload sources.
- Ygg2 7y ago
  > And you think the transition to fusion would be FASTER? My mind boggles at your double think. No? I just think fusion tech is the future. A clean, abundant, uninterruptible, and independent source of energy that can be used on Earth or on Alpha Centauri. I don't really expect to see them in my lifetime. > It's bizarre you think dealing with intermittency would require impossible, or even particularly difficult, changes. If you notice, grids are already becoming smarter, with power markets dispatching on short term prices. The market is going to force things in the right direction, which is renewables/storage and not high cost baseload sources. Again, that's not my experience. I've seen some countries move towards renewables, but nothing on the required scale. As for smart grids are you talking about decentralized grids, where consumers can send energy upstream or just more efficient energy grids? And as for the markets, those depend on policies. If Trump says, we're making a renewables tax and tariffs on solar panels, those same markets could turn on renewables.
  - pfdietz 7y ago
    > I've seen some countries move towards renewables, but nothing on the required scale. This is a form of a tired and invalid argument that one often sees. It's basically "nothing can ever happen for the first time." It also ignores the details of just what has been happening. Renewables have declined in price very quickly. The timescale for this decline has been shorter than the lifespan of installed generating infrastructure. This is very unusual for power technology, so if one is not careful one may be misled, as you apparently have been. We're in a weird situation where that installed base is obsolete. It's still there, churning away, but only because its capital cost is written off. And some is being ripped out because it can't even earn its operating costs now. What you want to look at is not this set of stranded assets, but the choices being made for new capacity. That is becoming overwhelmingly renewable. General Electric, for example, is in a world of hurt right now because the demand for gas turbines is collapsing. And nuclear fission or coal with steam turbines? Dead technologies.

by Ygg2 7y ago

pfdietz 7y ago

The trend of decreasing costs for PV has followed an empirical experience curve for decades, with an exponent of about -0.2 (giving cost as a function of cumulative production). There are perennially assertions this trend has ended, but those assertions have never been correct. Is there any reason to think they will be correct now? I assert no: PV modules are still well away from the costs of the material and energy inputs. I'll add that fusion economic studies have to posit large learning effects as well, so the "N-th of a Kind" plant is much cheaper than the first. And there, this assumption is dubious, since the closest technology (fission) has not shown good learning effects. That's why fission is failing now -- any technology that doesn't improve eventually gets killed as the competition does. > It's ok. I don't think we'll transfer to renewables before it's too late anyway. And you think the transition to fusion would be FASTER? My mind boggles at your double think. > So you're saying that economics will change grid design? That grids designed for single way of transmitting energy will somehow reconfigure to allow consumers to stream energy to the source? It's bizarre you think dealing with intermittency would require impossible, or even particularly difficult, changes. If you notice, grids are already becoming smarter, with power markets dispatching on short term prices. Storage and dispatchable demand fit nicely into this system. The market is going to force things in the right direction, which is renewables/storage and not high cost baseload sources.

Ygg2 7y ago
> And you think the transition to fusion would be FASTER? My mind boggles at your double think. No? I just think fusion tech is the future. A clean, abundant, uninterruptible, and independent source of energy that can be used on Earth or on Alpha Centauri. I don't really expect to see them in my lifetime. > It's bizarre you think dealing with intermittency would require impossible, or even particularly difficult, changes. If you notice, grids are already becoming smarter, with power markets dispatching on short term prices. The market is going to force things in the right direction, which is renewables/storage and not high cost baseload sources. Again, that's not my experience. I've seen some countries move towards renewables, but nothing on the required scale. As for smart grids are you talking about decentralized grids, where consumers can send energy upstream or just more efficient energy grids? And as for the markets, those depend on policies. If Trump says, we're making a renewables tax and tariffs on solar panels, those same markets could turn on renewables.
- pfdietz 7y ago
  > I've seen some countries move towards renewables, but nothing on the required scale. This is a form of a tired and invalid argument that one often sees. It's basically "nothing can ever happen for the first time." It also ignores the details of just what has been happening. Renewables have declined in price very quickly. The timescale for this decline has been shorter than the lifespan of installed generating infrastructure. This is very unusual for power technology, so if one is not careful one may be misled, as you apparently have been. We're in a weird situation where that installed base is obsolete. It's still there, churning away, but only because its capital cost is written off. And some is being ripped out because it can't even earn its operating costs now. What you want to look at is not this set of stranded assets, but the choices being made for new capacity. That is becoming overwhelmingly renewable. General Electric, for example, is in a world of hurt right now because the demand for gas turbines is collapsing. And nuclear fission or coal with steam turbines? Dead technologies.