3 ms·

A more recent reference and thorough analysis on moving to 100% wind, water and solar (WWS) can be found in the soon to be published, 100% Clean, Renewable Ener

A more recent reference and thorough analysis on moving to 100% wind, water and solar (WWS) can be found in the soon to be published, 100% Clean, Renewable Energy and Storage for Everything. A draft is available online https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/WWSBook/WWSBook.html https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/WWSBook/WWSBook... While I am still bullish on nuclear, particularly for space operations, the time delta argument is most compelling against nuclear plants. It can take 20 years for a new plant to become operational. Even after 70+ years of controlled nuclear fission. This is the cost then of not allocating research dollars to civilian long term projects. And even with a transition to 100% WWS, carbon capture tech will still require some sort of Manhattan Project level of urgency. This may be a great candidate for AI-mediated materials discovery. To search for the "tungsten filament" which will power next-gen "artificial tress" ;) https://asunow.asu.edu/20190429-solutions-lackner-carbon-capture-technology-moves-commercialization https://asunow.asu.edu/20190429-solutions-lackner-carbon-cap...

acidburnNSA 7y ago
Let's recall that the author of that first link literally sued his scientific critics who published a peer-reviewed take-down of his 100% renewable plan a few years ago. https://www.technologyreview.com/f/609308/a-renewable-energy-champion-is-suing-his-scientific-critics/ https://www.technologyreview.com/f/609308/a-renewable-energy... One element not often mentioned in these is the Energy Return On Investment which drops to around 5:1 as intermittent renewables with massive backup systems ramp up. This low level (5:1) seriously challenges the renewable transition plans. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2019.100399 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2019.100399 Nuclear eroi is closer to 50:1.
- kragen 7y ago
  That paper looks very interesting, thanks! I'll have to read it. I agree that the cost of storage is an important concern, but the calculations I've done don't substantiate the worries I've often seen. On skimming the paper, it isn't obvious what level of overprovisioning, utility-scale storage, and demand response they're presuming, or what learning curves for PV and battery costs (including energy and material costs). Have you been able to find where they described those assumptions?

acidburnNSA 7y ago

Let's recall that the author of that first link literally sued his scientific critics who published a peer-reviewed take-down of his 100% renewable plan a few years ago. https://www.technologyreview.com/f/609308/a-renewable-energy-champion-is-suing-his-scientific-critics/ https://www.technologyreview.com/f/609308/a-renewable-energy... One element not often mentioned in these is the Energy Return On Investment which drops to around 5:1 as intermittent renewables with massive backup systems ramp up. This low level (5:1) seriously challenges the renewable transition plans. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2019.100399 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2019.100399 Nuclear eroi is closer to 50:1.

kragen 7y ago
That paper looks very interesting, thanks! I'll have to read it. I agree that the cost of storage is an important concern, but the calculations I've done don't substantiate the worries I've often seen. On skimming the paper, it isn't obvious what level of overprovisioning, utility-scale storage, and demand response they're presuming, or what learning curves for PV and battery costs (including energy and material costs). Have you been able to find where they described those assumptions?