42 ms·
The solution seems pretty simple based on current technology: * Nuclear for base load generation * Wind/Solar for peak times during the day * Pumped hydroele
by tristor 7y ago
The solution seems pretty simple based on current technology:
* Nuclear for base load generation
* Wind/Solar for peak times during the day
* Pumped hydroelectric storage to help offset excess capacity
* Maintain existing hydroelectric dams
It's pretty much that simple, but the politic blocks against using nuclear are massively damaging to our ability to put in place any real solutions.
- briandear 7y agoWhy is this being downvoted?
- joshypants 7y agoBecause nuclear takes too long to spin up - we don't have time.
- ericvanular 7y agoNuclear takes time but I don't think the solution is going to come through only one approach. It seems like we'll need a mix of technologies to actually solve this problem. Nuclear provides clean base load in many places currently (e.g. more than 60% of the base power in Ontario)
- kortilla 7y agoWell then we just keep burning gas/coal for base load. Congrats on wrecking the planet.
- joshypants 7y agoWe have 10 years to cut 50% of emissions. We literally can't build enough nuclear plants in that time, it's very slow. It's also really expensive. We have to use other renewables.
- powerbroker 7y agoWe should a) build renewable; and b) build nuclear reactors with the idea that you will insert rods, to decrease power output when the winds are blowing strong, and restore power when the winds have dampened. Outcome, lowered nuclear waste from the plant, fewer expensive battery storage (or pumped hydro).
- ericvanular 7y agoHey powerbroker, would love to have your opinions over at https://collective.energy https://collective.energy
- hanoz 7y ago> We have 10 years to cut 50% of emissions. Do we!? What happens otherwise? Because it's a cast iron certainty that global emissions won't be anywhere near 50% less in ten years time.
- ericvanular 7y agoGreat suggestions. I think the community we're discussing would really value your input if you'd be okay with sharing these same thoughts on https://collective.energy https://collective.energy!
- zackmorris 7y agoI'm against nuclear power because current policy doesn't account for the externalities of fuel mining and waste storage. If it's so safe, then reactors should be built in population centers, and the waste should be stored there too. A recent article suggests that it might be possible to transmute waste with lasers, but I am skeptical that it will achieve net-positive energy. Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21365817 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21365817 Also dams kill fish, to the point of driving salmon nearly to extinction in the pacific northwest: https://e360.yale.edu/features/on-the-northwests-snake-river-the-case-for-dam-removal-grows https://e360.yale.edu/features/on-the-northwests-snake-river... Aside from that, I think that your sentiment is correct that we have the technology today to get off fossil fuels. The trend is that electricity will soon become too cheap to meter (literally, at peak production more energy will flow into the grid than what's used). So the new frontier in renewable energy is storage. If I had a million dollars, I'd invest in displacement tech like this one: http://www.summitt.ca/canada-launches-worlds-first-underwater-energy-storage/ http://www.summitt.ca/canada-launches-worlds-first-underwate... There's also great promise in storing excess grid energy in electric car batteries, and in big dumb sodium-sulfur or nickel-iron batteries. So I think we should put our R&D efforts into energy storage, not nuclear. Not to mention that nuclear is now the most expensive technology. It goes nuclear, coal, natural gas, solar, then wind in descending order: https://bfnagy.com/clean-electricity/usa-solar-wind-are-less-expensive-than-coal-gas-nuclear/ https://bfnagy.com/clean-electricity/usa-solar-wind-are-less...
- 627467 7y agoHow about externalities of batteries and most realistic energy storage solutions?