3 ms·

I would argue that buying anything where the cost is dropping exponentially is foolish as well. This would mean that it makes a lot more sense to invest in the

by zests 6y ago

I would argue that buying anything where the cost is dropping exponentially is foolish as well. This would mean that it makes a lot more sense to invest in the economy and wait until renewable technology stops becoming cheaper/more reliable before buying. But what do we do in the meanwhile? What do we do if storage technology isn't able to match energy demand when the sun isn't out and the wind isn't blowing? What do we do in areas that don't get as much renewable energy? Many questions. Probably more than one sensible answer. Renewables might not be a magic bullet. We need a plan B. Nuclear as a long term base load power source? Not as crazy as it sounds.

epistasis 6y ago
As equipment ages out, we need to replace it with something. Just as we need to buy computers right now for our computation needs, even if it would be cheaper to wait until 2050 to compute things, that doesn't help us with decisions now. The lifecycle of wind and solar is typically planned to be around 25 years. Most installs are lasting longer than expected. With wind, some farms are reporting with bigger turbines even before lifetimes are over as it is the economically advantageous choice for getting more energy out of a prime location for wind. This isn't common with solar because new panels are cheaper, but so now generate much more power from the same land usage unlike wind. Renewables are a proven option, solar has truly become a "magic bullet," in that it is the cheapest energy source in history. But it will only be one tool among many that we will use. I would like for nuclear to be a tool, but the current generation of tech is not constructable, and the lead times are too long for it to have an impact in the foreseeable future.
Tade0 6y ago
What do we do if storage technology isn't able to match energy demand when the sun isn't out and the wind isn't blowing? At heights current generation wind turbines reach wind is blowing essentially all the time, giving them the ability to reach a capacity factor of 63%.

by zests 6y ago

epistasis 6y ago

As equipment ages out, we need to replace it with something. Just as we need to buy computers right now for our computation needs, even if it would be cheaper to wait until 2050 to compute things, that doesn't help us with decisions now. The lifecycle of wind and solar is typically planned to be around 25 years. Most installs are lasting longer than expected. With wind, some farms are reporting with bigger turbines even before lifetimes are over as it is the economically advantageous choice for getting more energy out of a prime location for wind. This isn't common with solar because new panels are cheaper, but so now generate much more power from the same land usage unlike wind. Renewables are a proven option, solar has truly become a "magic bullet," in that it is the cheapest energy source in history. But it will only be one tool among many that we will use. I would like for nuclear to be a tool, but the current generation of tech is not constructable, and the lead times are too long for it to have an impact in the foreseeable future.

Tade0 6y ago

What do we do if storage technology isn't able to match energy demand when the sun isn't out and the wind isn't blowing? At heights current generation wind turbines reach wind is blowing essentially all the time, giving them the ability to reach a capacity factor of 63%.