5 ms·

“Relying solely on solar and wind is a fool’s hope, I think,” Binderbauer says. We’ve had this discussion many times on HN.

rob74 6y ago
I agree that solar and wind have disadvantages, and they can't be used to cover 100% of the energy demand, but they are available right now, whereas controlled fusion has been "10-30 years away" for the last 60 (?) years.
- melling 6y ago
  No one said we should wait for fusion. That’s not what that statement means. “Relying solely on solar and wind is a fool’s hope, I think,”
- cygx 6y ago
  whereas controlled fusion has been "10-30 years away" for the last 60 (?) years One standard internet response to that is this graph[1]. No funding, no results. The international community decided to pool ressources with ITER. The founding members? The US, EU, Japan and the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union collapsed, the US pulled out for a couple of years, other countries (eg Canada) joined and left gain, Brexit has put the future of JET (where some relevant preparatory experimentation is done) in doubt, etc. [1] https://i.imgur.com/3vYLQmm.png https://i.imgur.com/3vYLQmm.png
- pfdietz 6y ago
  Why can't solar and wind cover 100% of energy demand? Please explain just where the showstopper is, in your view.
qayxc 6y ago
Hm. Personally I wonder who those people are, who allegedly insist on relying solely on wind and solar. TBH, this sounds like a classical straw man to me. Who'd want to actively dismantle existing hydro power, geothermal-, waste-to-energy, biomass power stations, etc.?
- cygx 6y ago
  That's not enough to power Germany, for example. To de-carbonize our electricity production completely, we need some yet to be determined additional energy storage mechanism. Power-to-gas would work very well if we can make it efficient enough (and control potential gas leaks), because a lot of the infrastructure is already in place. If that doesn't pan out, there's other technology that sounds promising (cryogenic energy storage, perhaps?), but in any case, there's still research to be done...
- marcus_holmes 6y ago
  Isn't this a core demand of the Extinction Rebellion crowd? That we actively dismantle hydro (because it interferes with river ecology), and all the fossil fuel and waste processing power generation? Not sure about geothermal - but I'm sure there's some people out there convinced it's a bad thing.
- pfdietz 6y ago
  The people who insist on solar and wind are the people who are paying for the energy. Because, you know, solar and wind are CHEAP. Who are these people who want to pay more for their energy than they have to?
  - 08-15 6y ago
    ...and that's why Germany has the CHEAPEST electricity in the world, right?
    - pfdietz 6y ago
      Germany subsidized renewables when they were expensive, and they are still paying for that. But wind and especially solar costs have crashed since then, having been driven down their experience curves by these subsidies and then the general subsequent growth in demand. You can thank Germany for this act of altruism that made renewables so cheap for the rest of us. Also, when comparing costs, you must not allow fossil fuels to get away free without being charged the cost the CO2 emissions are imposing on everyone. Among the CO2-free options, wind and solar are now several times cheaper (per kWh produced) than new nuclear.

rob74 6y ago

I agree that solar and wind have disadvantages, and they can't be used to cover 100% of the energy demand, but they are available right now, whereas controlled fusion has been "10-30 years away" for the last 60 (?) years.

melling 6y ago
No one said we should wait for fusion. That’s not what that statement means. “Relying solely on solar and wind is a fool’s hope, I think,”
cygx 6y ago
whereas controlled fusion has been "10-30 years away" for the last 60 (?) years One standard internet response to that is this graph[1]. No funding, no results. The international community decided to pool ressources with ITER. The founding members? The US, EU, Japan and the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union collapsed, the US pulled out for a couple of years, other countries (eg Canada) joined and left gain, Brexit has put the future of JET (where some relevant preparatory experimentation is done) in doubt, etc. [1] https://i.imgur.com/3vYLQmm.png https://i.imgur.com/3vYLQmm.png
pfdietz 6y ago
Why can't solar and wind cover 100% of energy demand? Please explain just where the showstopper is, in your view.

qayxc 6y ago

Hm. Personally I wonder who those people are, who allegedly insist on relying solely on wind and solar. TBH, this sounds like a classical straw man to me. Who'd want to actively dismantle existing hydro power, geothermal-, waste-to-energy, biomass power stations, etc.?

cygx 6y ago
That's not enough to power Germany, for example. To de-carbonize our electricity production completely, we need some yet to be determined additional energy storage mechanism. Power-to-gas would work very well if we can make it efficient enough (and control potential gas leaks), because a lot of the infrastructure is already in place. If that doesn't pan out, there's other technology that sounds promising (cryogenic energy storage, perhaps?), but in any case, there's still research to be done...
marcus_holmes 6y ago
Isn't this a core demand of the Extinction Rebellion crowd? That we actively dismantle hydro (because it interferes with river ecology), and all the fossil fuel and waste processing power generation? Not sure about geothermal - but I'm sure there's some people out there convinced it's a bad thing.
pfdietz 6y ago
The people who insist on solar and wind are the people who are paying for the energy. Because, you know, solar and wind are CHEAP. Who are these people who want to pay more for their energy than they have to?
- 08-15 6y ago
  ...and that's why Germany has the CHEAPEST electricity in the world, right?
  - pfdietz 6y ago
    Germany subsidized renewables when they were expensive, and they are still paying for that. But wind and especially solar costs have crashed since then, having been driven down their experience curves by these subsidies and then the general subsequent growth in demand. You can thank Germany for this act of altruism that made renewables so cheap for the rest of us. Also, when comparing costs, you must not allow fossil fuels to get away free without being charged the cost the CO2 emissions are imposing on everyone. Among the CO2-free options, wind and solar are now several times cheaper (per kWh produced) than new nuclear.