5 ms·

I don't really see that happening. Most of the things you've suggested would require large amounts on energy to produce. I don't see energy getting cheaper over

I don't really see that happening. Most of the things you've suggested would require large amounts on energy to produce. I don't see energy getting cheaper over the next 50-100 years. It seems to me that climate change and reduced dependency on fossil fuels we lead to reduced globalization and population reduction.

tito 7y ago
The cost of energy will go near zero. The marginal cost of an electron captured with solar is free. Solar is starting to beat fossil fuel installations already, below $0.05 USD per kWh. This was not predicted even by the biggest cheerleaders even 10 years ago: "In 2017, the solar industry achieved SunShot’s original 2020 cost target of $0.06 per kilowatt-hour for utility-scale photovoltaic (PV) solar power three years ahead of schedule, dropping from about $0.28 to $0.06 per kilowatt-hour (kWh)." [1] Sunshot goal for 2030 is $0.03 per kWh. [1] https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/sunshot-2030 https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/sunshot-2030
- monk_e_boy 7y ago
  Someone is going to cover the Sahara with solar panels and make some serious cash. Bonus points for automating the production of solar panels out of sand.
  - tito 7y ago
    Call it "Sand to Solar". Some of the best ideas start out as jokes, I googled for this because I was curious: "New technology allows heated sand to generate electricity, presenting a viable new option for investors to focus on." https://oilandenergyinvestor.com/acq/new-energy-from-sand-what-you-need-to-know/ https://oilandenergyinvestor.com/acq/new-energy-from-sand-wh...
    - AareyBaba 7y ago
      I wasted more time than I care to think reading that article. There is no mention of how the technology works. A vague reference to an academic project in the UAE. Most of the article is just filler fluff. This is a marketing article to investors for this authors "wealth building energy advantage".
      - tito 7y ago
        If you're curious, try googling for "SandShifter", here's an energy.gov profile: https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/project-profile-csp-energy-storage-solutions-multiple-technologies-compared https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/project-profile-csp-energy... https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1183706-solar-holdings-final-technical-report https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1183706-solar-holdings-final-tec...
- jeffreyrogers 7y ago
  Okay, how about the copper that transports that electron to somewhere it can do useful work? How about the 1800C furnace that melts sand into the silicon for the solar panel? How about the diesel fuel that the massive mining trucks used to haul the copper ore out of the mine are fueled with (these things are heavy and get something like 8 gallons to the mile (not a typo) good luck running them on batteries)? Those things aren't going to zero anytime soon.
  - cagenut 7y ago
    This is just pointless smug contrarianism, I hope you're just in a bad mood and don't really believe or think this way regularly. Mining trucks are excellent candidates for battery electrification, Volvo is already building and selling them. What other things do you think are never happening that are infact already happening?
    - jeffreyrogers 7y ago
      I really doubt it makes sense to use electric vehicles for mining, but I could be wrong. I guess we'll be able to see in the coming years what fraction of mining vehicles are electric. But what is wrong about what I stated? It's obviously impossible for solar to approach $0 because of the large material costs inherent in manufacturing solar panels and transporting electricity. This is not contrarianism, it's realism. We probably use more energy per capita than is sustainable, and eventually we will have to change that. Also solar panels wear out. I could see a case being made for the cost going to zero if you amortize it, but you can only amortize it over about 25 years, after which you have to replace the panels. This sets a floor on the price.
      - newnewpdro 7y ago
        > I really doubt it makes sense to use electric vehicles for mining, but I could be wrong. I guess we'll be able to see in the coming years what fraction of mining vehicles are electric. They're slow-moving, inherently massive and heavy, and travel relatively short distances per round-trip. So they don't care much about battery weight, size or limited range, and appreciate the massive torque from low RPMs. It's kind of an ideal case for a battery-swapping BEV system. Just wait for the battery costs and energy densities to both improve and this will be a no-brainer. They can charge the drained battery on the grid from cheaper/cleaner sources while the other is busy hauling a load. Of course if the terrain is such that the mine is on the top of a mountain ascended empty but descended full, you don't even need battery swapping, it'll recharge on the descent. Nobody wants to spend money owning and operating those diesel engines if they don't have to. When the BEV option is available and makes business sense they'll switch immediately. They'll require little maintenance, and you don't need specially trained technicians to swap batteries and order new ones when they need replacing.
- yodsanklai 7y ago
  > Solar is starting to beat fossil fuel installations already, below $0.05 USD per kWh. I read that over and over, but it's like comparing apples and oranges.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - robocat 7y ago
    Depends upon your country. Countries with significant lake hydroelectricity (not run-of-river) can "store" the solar power (no batteries needed) by reducing flow during the daytime (and increasing flow at nighttime if required). This is because hydroelectric dams are essentially stores of electricity. No need for pumping or other expensive storage schemes, is your already have one!
- revax 7y ago
  Does your current price of PV include storage? Also the PV cells made mainly from China are currently manufactured using coal power plant. But what would be the price of photovoltaics if only renewable energies were used? My guess is it will be much higher.
  - monkeydreams 7y ago
    I have never understood what people are trying to argue when they make this point. It would be like an oncologist arguing against surgery that would inhibit a tumour on the basis that it wouldn't eradicate it.
johnmorrison 7y ago
Hey, I work at a nuclear fission company. We think we can get our electricity prices to around $0.0025 / kWh by around 2045. This represents a ~20x reduction from off-peak cost in Ontario where I live, and ~150x reduction from average electricity prices in Germany. Also, w.r.t. population, the way I see it our population is growing very quickly whether we like it or not (look at Africa). I think there's a good opportunity for us to support a population much larger than we have right now with improved sustainable energy tech. (Solar panels are also getting cheaper, and will probably run around $0.02/kWh in the near future if iteration continues, and are probably capable of supporting us up to 20 billion people as well)
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  Hmm, Hinkley C is signed up at a strike price of £92.50/MWh, in 2012 Pounds. A 400x reduction when so much of the cost of nuclear is safety, waste management and decommissioning? That's surprising to say the least. Can you give any clue on how? The trend of solar and wind continuing the inexorable march downward seems much more certain.
  - johnmorrison 7y ago
    · Liquid fueled MSR, safety is best of any other source. So, we think regulators will lower barriers over time as we prove this. · Waste management is easier since our waste will be ~5x less mass per kg fuel (~500x less mass per kWh energy), and also returns to natural radioactivity much faster (one or two centuries). We actually plan to sell most of the fission products as useful materials. · As of now, our reactors are planned to be mostly stainless steel. Most of the lifetime mass-throughput of current GI-GIII fission plants is concrete and steel, of which we have basically none of the concrete and much less steel because no pressure vessel. So, decommissioning is much easier and probably will be internally profitable. You're right about the last part, because solar will almost definitely get at least 2x cheaper than it is today, and within not more than a few decades. My perception is biased (ofc), but in my view it's actually very likely that we will reach or surpass our goal, though, so I personally wouldn't bet on renewables.

tito 7y ago

The cost of energy will go near zero. The marginal cost of an electron captured with solar is free. Solar is starting to beat fossil fuel installations already, below $0.05 USD per kWh. This was not predicted even by the biggest cheerleaders even 10 years ago: "In 2017, the solar industry achieved SunShot’s original 2020 cost target of $0.06 per kilowatt-hour for utility-scale photovoltaic (PV) solar power three years ahead of schedule, dropping from about $0.28 to $0.06 per kilowatt-hour (kWh)." [1] Sunshot goal for 2030 is $0.03 per kWh. [1] https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/sunshot-2030 https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/sunshot-2030

monk_e_boy 7y ago
Someone is going to cover the Sahara with solar panels and make some serious cash. Bonus points for automating the production of solar panels out of sand.
- tito 7y ago
  Call it "Sand to Solar". Some of the best ideas start out as jokes, I googled for this because I was curious: "New technology allows heated sand to generate electricity, presenting a viable new option for investors to focus on." https://oilandenergyinvestor.com/acq/new-energy-from-sand-what-you-need-to-know/ https://oilandenergyinvestor.com/acq/new-energy-from-sand-wh...
  - AareyBaba 7y ago
    I wasted more time than I care to think reading that article. There is no mention of how the technology works. A vague reference to an academic project in the UAE. Most of the article is just filler fluff. This is a marketing article to investors for this authors "wealth building energy advantage".
    - tito 7y ago
      If you're curious, try googling for "SandShifter", here's an energy.gov profile: https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/project-profile-csp-energy-storage-solutions-multiple-technologies-compared https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/project-profile-csp-energy... https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1183706-solar-holdings-final-technical-report https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1183706-solar-holdings-final-tec...
jeffreyrogers 7y ago
Okay, how about the copper that transports that electron to somewhere it can do useful work? How about the 1800C furnace that melts sand into the silicon for the solar panel? How about the diesel fuel that the massive mining trucks used to haul the copper ore out of the mine are fueled with (these things are heavy and get something like 8 gallons to the mile (not a typo) good luck running them on batteries)? Those things aren't going to zero anytime soon.
- cagenut 7y ago
  This is just pointless smug contrarianism, I hope you're just in a bad mood and don't really believe or think this way regularly. Mining trucks are excellent candidates for battery electrification, Volvo is already building and selling them. What other things do you think are never happening that are infact already happening?
  - jeffreyrogers 7y ago
    I really doubt it makes sense to use electric vehicles for mining, but I could be wrong. I guess we'll be able to see in the coming years what fraction of mining vehicles are electric. But what is wrong about what I stated? It's obviously impossible for solar to approach $0 because of the large material costs inherent in manufacturing solar panels and transporting electricity. This is not contrarianism, it's realism. We probably use more energy per capita than is sustainable, and eventually we will have to change that. Also solar panels wear out. I could see a case being made for the cost going to zero if you amortize it, but you can only amortize it over about 25 years, after which you have to replace the panels. This sets a floor on the price.
    - newnewpdro 7y ago
      > I really doubt it makes sense to use electric vehicles for mining, but I could be wrong. I guess we'll be able to see in the coming years what fraction of mining vehicles are electric. They're slow-moving, inherently massive and heavy, and travel relatively short distances per round-trip. So they don't care much about battery weight, size or limited range, and appreciate the massive torque from low RPMs. It's kind of an ideal case for a battery-swapping BEV system. Just wait for the battery costs and energy densities to both improve and this will be a no-brainer. They can charge the drained battery on the grid from cheaper/cleaner sources while the other is busy hauling a load. Of course if the terrain is such that the mine is on the top of a mountain ascended empty but descended full, you don't even need battery swapping, it'll recharge on the descent. Nobody wants to spend money owning and operating those diesel engines if they don't have to. When the BEV option is available and makes business sense they'll switch immediately. They'll require little maintenance, and you don't need specially trained technicians to swap batteries and order new ones when they need replacing.
yodsanklai 7y ago
> Solar is starting to beat fossil fuel installations already, below $0.05 USD per kWh. I read that over and over, but it's like comparing apples and oranges.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- robocat 7y ago
  Depends upon your country. Countries with significant lake hydroelectricity (not run-of-river) can "store" the solar power (no batteries needed) by reducing flow during the daytime (and increasing flow at nighttime if required). This is because hydroelectric dams are essentially stores of electricity. No need for pumping or other expensive storage schemes, is your already have one!
revax 7y ago
Does your current price of PV include storage? Also the PV cells made mainly from China are currently manufactured using coal power plant. But what would be the price of photovoltaics if only renewable energies were used? My guess is it will be much higher.
- monkeydreams 7y ago
  I have never understood what people are trying to argue when they make this point. It would be like an oncologist arguing against surgery that would inhibit a tumour on the basis that it wouldn't eradicate it.

johnmorrison 7y ago

Hey, I work at a nuclear fission company. We think we can get our electricity prices to around $0.0025 / kWh by around 2045. This represents a ~20x reduction from off-peak cost in Ontario where I live, and ~150x reduction from average electricity prices in Germany. Also, w.r.t. population, the way I see it our population is growing very quickly whether we like it or not (look at Africa). I think there's a good opportunity for us to support a population much larger than we have right now with improved sustainable energy tech. (Solar panels are also getting cheaper, and will probably run around $0.02/kWh in the near future if iteration continues, and are probably capable of supporting us up to 20 billion people as well)

NeedMoreTea 7y ago
Hmm, Hinkley C is signed up at a strike price of £92.50/MWh, in 2012 Pounds. A 400x reduction when so much of the cost of nuclear is safety, waste management and decommissioning? That's surprising to say the least. Can you give any clue on how? The trend of solar and wind continuing the inexorable march downward seems much more certain.
- johnmorrison 7y ago
  · Liquid fueled MSR, safety is best of any other source. So, we think regulators will lower barriers over time as we prove this. · Waste management is easier since our waste will be ~5x less mass per kg fuel (~500x less mass per kWh energy), and also returns to natural radioactivity much faster (one or two centuries). We actually plan to sell most of the fission products as useful materials. · As of now, our reactors are planned to be mostly stainless steel. Most of the lifetime mass-throughput of current GI-GIII fission plants is concrete and steel, of which we have basically none of the concrete and much less steel because no pressure vessel. So, decommissioning is much easier and probably will be internally profitable. You're right about the last part, because solar will almost definitely get at least 2x cheaper than it is today, and within not more than a few decades. My perception is biased (ofc), but in my view it's actually very likely that we will reach or surpass our goal, though, so I personally wouldn't bet on renewables.