8 ms·

It does exist. But it uses nuclear fusion instead of fission. There's a big nuclear fusion plant at the center of our universe. It's called the "sun". It spread

by hannob 6y ago

It does exist. But it uses nuclear fusion instead of fission. There's a big nuclear fusion plant at the center of our universe. It's called the "sun". It spreads out its energy for free. There are highly modular energy collectors you can buy that make use of that energy and they're getting cheaper at amazing rates.

whimsicalism 6y ago
You still need base load, ie. an option that can displace natgas in the way that natgas displaced coal. There's a reason why even though solar is now cheaper than coal it didn't displace it like natgas has.
- pydry 6y ago
  The reason is more about capex, the financial necessity of aging out existing plants and the time it takes to shift from one dominant source of power generation to another. It wouldn't have been possible to shift to nuclear power overnight either. Since natgas is 100% dispatchable and is 35% of power generation in the US it's not like nuclear's 20% is really contributing that much stability to the grid right now and natgas can be gradually dialed down as solar/wind/variability tech is dialed up.
  - whimsicalism 6y ago
    > the financial necessity of aging out existing plants and the time it takes to shift from one dominant source of power generation to another. Yes... but we just undertook the capex to do this with coal -> natgas in the last decade or so. So the barrier is not just the financial cost of overhauling.
    - pydry 6y ago
      and in the last 5 years we went from about 5% to 18% renewables. The renewables industry in the US wasn't given any special dispensation so it had to compete pretty much without subsidy with natgas and coal which it could only really start to do about 5 years ago (it's cost competitive with coal only this year). In fact, arguably the US subsidies oil and gas more than renewables. Nuclear would require massive subsidies to grow beyond 20%. Renewables won't.
      - patmorgan23 6y ago
        The green industry is subsidized in the US at both the state and federal levels.
        pydry 6y ago
        Some. Dirt cheap solar panels from China also had tariffs slapped on them by Obama which offset much of that and killed the solar boom a few years ago. The oil and gas industry is also subsidized at federal and state level, of course.
- SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
  Last I checked we still use a lot of coal. Solar hasn’t replaced natural gas, because they are entirely different things. It’s exceptionally easy to transport natural gas, it has a ridiculously good energy density and burns well, the logistics of natural gas require no technology in the lines that run between natural gas devices are a half pound of pressure meaning any idiot can hookup/install/modify. There is a case to be made for hydrogen displacing natural gas, but in my opinion not until we have small local fusion reactors, and in that event you’re probably looking a battery anyway. Hydrogen has great potential for aviation, but home consumer use natural gas will be king for some time.
  - whimsicalism 6y ago
    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/10/28/climate/how-electricity-generation-changed-in-your-state-election.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/10/28/climate/how-e... Rapidly declining, actually. > they are entirely different things. Uh, sure - but many of the reasons you're giving seem to be missing that I'm talking about for electricity generation, whereas you seem to be imagining in home usage? Natural gas power plants can have 1000 psi or more in their lines. > it has a ridiculously good energy density and burns well Yes, good energy density - that does sound like something that might be important.
darkerside 6y ago
This is an irrelevant distraction. There's no reason we can't do both. And, since life on Earth is powered by the sun, everything is fusion power if you zoom out far enough.
- nicoffeine 6y ago
  > There's no reason we can't do both Sure there is -- one option is a terrifically expensive and dangerous dead end. We need to focus on figuring out the logistics for the capturing, storage, and distribution of our friendly neighborhood fusion reactor. If you look at the increasing energy density of battery technology over time[1], there is no practical application for fossil fuels or nuclear in the long run. There are startups[2][3] that are far closer to the "holy grail" of battery technology than any similar plan for nuclear based power. The economics are already so clear that every major energy provider is moving to renewables. There is (correctly) no appetite for massive nuclear power plants in anyone's backyard. However, there is already a huge market for putting solar on top of your roof and a battery in the garage. Tesla has proven the massive savings available to any sizeable government with the use of a truly smart grid.[4] Once the logistics are in place to recycle high performance electric vehicle batteries into infrastructure storage where charging times are less important, it's game over for non-renewables for everything but industrial applications. And there are already solutions for that.[5][6] [1] https://www.researchgate.net/figure/History-of-development-of-secondary-batteries-in-view-of-energy-density-Data-is-taken_fig1_255748960 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/History-of-development-o... [2] https://venturebeat.com/2020/01/28/tony-fadell-and-mitsui-kinzoku-back-holy-grail-silicon-battery-startup-advano/ https://venturebeat.com/2020/01/28/tony-fadell-and-mitsui-ki... [3] https://venturebeat.com/2018/08/16/sila-nanotechnologies-raises-70-million-for-next-generation-battery-development/ https://venturebeat.com/2018/08/16/sila-nanotechnologies-rai... [4] https://www.startupdaily.net/2020/03/south-australias-tesla-big-battery-saved-consumers-116-million-in-electricity-costs-last-year/ https://www.startupdaily.net/2020/03/south-australias-tesla-... [5] https://phys.org/news/2019-03-renewable-energy-solution-industrial-applications.html https://phys.org/news/2019-03-renewable-energy-solution-indu... [6] https://www.geekwire.com/2019/company-backed-bill-gates-claims-breakthrough-concentrated-solar-energy-promising-replace-fossil-fuels-industrial-plants/ https://www.geekwire.com/2019/company-backed-bill-gates-clai...
manfredo 6y ago
Sure, except the Earth rotates and we can only collect said energy for half the day. It's also fluctuates in the amount of energy collected seasonally (tilt of Earth's axis), and most energy demand happens to occur in northern latitudes where these fluctuations are more extreme. Our ability to store energy remains orders of magnitude smaller than what is required to actually use this as a primary source of energy. This doesn't provide a path to a decarbonized energy sector. It's a good way of mitigating emissions while a real decarbonization solution is implemented. Right now nuclear is the only known way of doing that, save for geographically dependent sources like hydroelectricity and geothermal power. Multiple countries generate the majority of their electricity from nuclear power. No country generates more than 15% of their energy from solar power, and only 3 countries (Malta, Yemen, Honduras) generate more than 10%.

by hannob 6y ago

whimsicalism 6y ago

You still need base load, ie. an option that can displace natgas in the way that natgas displaced coal. There's a reason why even though solar is now cheaper than coal it didn't displace it like natgas has.

pydry 6y ago
The reason is more about capex, the financial necessity of aging out existing plants and the time it takes to shift from one dominant source of power generation to another. It wouldn't have been possible to shift to nuclear power overnight either. Since natgas is 100% dispatchable and is 35% of power generation in the US it's not like nuclear's 20% is really contributing that much stability to the grid right now and natgas can be gradually dialed down as solar/wind/variability tech is dialed up.
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  > the financial necessity of aging out existing plants and the time it takes to shift from one dominant source of power generation to another. Yes... but we just undertook the capex to do this with coal -> natgas in the last decade or so. So the barrier is not just the financial cost of overhauling.
  - pydry 6y ago
    and in the last 5 years we went from about 5% to 18% renewables. The renewables industry in the US wasn't given any special dispensation so it had to compete pretty much without subsidy with natgas and coal which it could only really start to do about 5 years ago (it's cost competitive with coal only this year). In fact, arguably the US subsidies oil and gas more than renewables. Nuclear would require massive subsidies to grow beyond 20%. Renewables won't.
    - patmorgan23 6y ago
      The green industry is subsidized in the US at both the state and federal levels.
      - pydry 6y ago
        Some. Dirt cheap solar panels from China also had tariffs slapped on them by Obama which offset much of that and killed the solar boom a few years ago. The oil and gas industry is also subsidized at federal and state level, of course.
SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
Last I checked we still use a lot of coal. Solar hasn’t replaced natural gas, because they are entirely different things. It’s exceptionally easy to transport natural gas, it has a ridiculously good energy density and burns well, the logistics of natural gas require no technology in the lines that run between natural gas devices are a half pound of pressure meaning any idiot can hookup/install/modify. There is a case to be made for hydrogen displacing natural gas, but in my opinion not until we have small local fusion reactors, and in that event you’re probably looking a battery anyway. Hydrogen has great potential for aviation, but home consumer use natural gas will be king for some time.
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/10/28/climate/how-electricity-generation-changed-in-your-state-election.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/10/28/climate/how-e... Rapidly declining, actually. > they are entirely different things. Uh, sure - but many of the reasons you're giving seem to be missing that I'm talking about for electricity generation, whereas you seem to be imagining in home usage? Natural gas power plants can have 1000 psi or more in their lines. > it has a ridiculously good energy density and burns well Yes, good energy density - that does sound like something that might be important.

darkerside 6y ago

This is an irrelevant distraction. There's no reason we can't do both. And, since life on Earth is powered by the sun, everything is fusion power if you zoom out far enough.

nicoffeine 6y ago
> There's no reason we can't do both Sure there is -- one option is a terrifically expensive and dangerous dead end. We need to focus on figuring out the logistics for the capturing, storage, and distribution of our friendly neighborhood fusion reactor. If you look at the increasing energy density of battery technology over time[1], there is no practical application for fossil fuels or nuclear in the long run. There are startups[2][3] that are far closer to the "holy grail" of battery technology than any similar plan for nuclear based power. The economics are already so clear that every major energy provider is moving to renewables. There is (correctly) no appetite for massive nuclear power plants in anyone's backyard. However, there is already a huge market for putting solar on top of your roof and a battery in the garage. Tesla has proven the massive savings available to any sizeable government with the use of a truly smart grid.[4] Once the logistics are in place to recycle high performance electric vehicle batteries into infrastructure storage where charging times are less important, it's game over for non-renewables for everything but industrial applications. And there are already solutions for that.[5][6] [1] https://www.researchgate.net/figure/History-of-development-of-secondary-batteries-in-view-of-energy-density-Data-is-taken_fig1_255748960 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/History-of-development-o... [2] https://venturebeat.com/2020/01/28/tony-fadell-and-mitsui-kinzoku-back-holy-grail-silicon-battery-startup-advano/ https://venturebeat.com/2020/01/28/tony-fadell-and-mitsui-ki... [3] https://venturebeat.com/2018/08/16/sila-nanotechnologies-raises-70-million-for-next-generation-battery-development/ https://venturebeat.com/2018/08/16/sila-nanotechnologies-rai... [4] https://www.startupdaily.net/2020/03/south-australias-tesla-big-battery-saved-consumers-116-million-in-electricity-costs-last-year/ https://www.startupdaily.net/2020/03/south-australias-tesla-... [5] https://phys.org/news/2019-03-renewable-energy-solution-industrial-applications.html https://phys.org/news/2019-03-renewable-energy-solution-indu... [6] https://www.geekwire.com/2019/company-backed-bill-gates-claims-breakthrough-concentrated-solar-energy-promising-replace-fossil-fuels-industrial-plants/ https://www.geekwire.com/2019/company-backed-bill-gates-clai...

manfredo 6y ago

Sure, except the Earth rotates and we can only collect said energy for half the day. It's also fluctuates in the amount of energy collected seasonally (tilt of Earth's axis), and most energy demand happens to occur in northern latitudes where these fluctuations are more extreme. Our ability to store energy remains orders of magnitude smaller than what is required to actually use this as a primary source of energy. This doesn't provide a path to a decarbonized energy sector. It's a good way of mitigating emissions while a real decarbonization solution is implemented. Right now nuclear is the only known way of doing that, save for geographically dependent sources like hydroelectricity and geothermal power. Multiple countries generate the majority of their electricity from nuclear power. No country generates more than 15% of their energy from solar power, and only 3 countries (Malta, Yemen, Honduras) generate more than 10%.