9 ms·

> 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 logi

• StillBored 6y ago
  Wish in one hand, * in the other and see which fills up faster. I've been hearing similar stories for the last 30 years. In that time the energy mix feeding my house has gone roughtly from 50% coal:40% nuke:10% NG, to 30% nuke:30% NG:30% coal: 10% wind. For an increase in total CO2 production, despite a slightly better CO2/MW rating due to moving from coal to NG. No one AFAIK, has managed to get their "green" energy solutions down to the levels france was in the 1980's, despite the increases in cost that come with not only having to build energy production, but 2-3x the production in storage. The day its actually cheaper to put solar on your average house with a tesla power wall will be the day there is a shitton of home equity loans being taken out to do so. Or for that matter people knocking on everyones door offering to do it for "free" to sell the power back to the grid. Right now most of the green energy solutions are "inexpensive" because they are being supported by natural gas generators. Meaning they are cleaner than standalone gas, but still a carbon source.
  • CogentHedgehog 6y ago
    This is... really off base for 2020. Solar and wind in the US are incredibly cheap sources of energy. Literally the cheapest options: https://www.lazard.com/media/451445/grphx_lcoe-02-02.jpg https://www.lazard.com/media/451445/grphx_lcoe-02-02.jpg Residential solar is expensive because you don't have the same economy of scale you see in utility-scale deployments. Also something like 1/3 of the cost is "soft costs" such as marketing and the crazy red tape associated with permitting. The latest academic modelling shows that we can meet 70-80% of energy demand from renewable energy alone, even without storage. All it requires is building a modest excess of capacity and a 50/50 wind/solar mix. When it comes time to add storage, battery storage costs have been plummeting and already dropped 75% over the last 6 years: https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/report-levelized-cost-of-energy-for-lithium-ion-batteries-bnef https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/report-levelize...
    • StillBored 6y ago
      But if its truly cheaper than all the worlds CO2 production problems are solved!! Energy is sufficiently deregulated in enough of the US that they will sell to the areas that aren't, just like France was doing with all its "old dirty" nukes, to the countries around it building "green". I can't tell from your graph, but I saw an actual cost estimate a couple months ago that points out what has been true for the past 10 years of "wind is cheaper" metrics. Which is that its not, because its not continuous (or controllable) power delivery. Nor does it account for the fact that it also needs to be overbuilt if its going to supply an energy storage system either. Nor does it account for the energy storage costs. So, yes in absolute KW produced its cheaper, but that does little but create an oversupply problem. Which is why in places like TX the power costs frequently go to zero when the wind is blowing and spike at other times. Making cheap power when you don't need it doesn't help. What TX needs is lots of power at 3PM (when in theory solar would be useful, but the existing smaller plants aren't making money either). The net result in TX has been lots of wind install, but even more gas install. Because the gas plants are actually making money. If big battery plants are economically workable then we would also see a lot of companies arbitraging the free wind energy into $ when the price spikes but we don't see that either. So its not a simple/sure bet like is being claimed. (for those that don't know, TX is one of the largest green energy systems in the world https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Texas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Texas)
• darkerside 6y ago
  > Sure there is -- one option is a terrifically expensive and dangerous dead end. You say this with such certainty... but all of your citations are about renewable and solar. What is your background that gives you the confidence to make such a statement when billions are being spent on nuclear power research by, what I presume you would consider to be, idiots? I'll stop there because ad hominem arguments are insufficient anyway. The only argument that really matters here is, capitalism will decide the path forward, and not you (fortunately, imo). And the way it does that is that people, none of whom can predict the future with perfect clarity, make intelligent bets about what technologies will produce the most value. As the research and development pans out, the winners become evident, and either way, consumers win. There's no need to try to strangle the nuclear baby in the crib. If it doesn't work, let it die in development. But, really, how can you make such a confident assertion about the prospects of nuclear? It boggles the mind.
  • nicoffeine 6y ago
    Hopefully HN is still a place where people who are interested in technology can make predictions. I make an effort never to call anyone names, but to focus on the data. I don't think people who are excited about new nuclear technology are idiots. Obviously, nuclear physicists are smart people. But no one, no matter how intelligent, is immune to hubris. > capitalism will decide the path forward, and not you (fortunately, imo) Capitalism is the poster child of hubris, and ultimately a fallible set of human ideas -- but that's a different discussion. However, if that is your metric, then the argument is already over.[1] > how can you make such a confident assertion about the prospects of nuclear? It boggles the mind. "But even some proponents of nuclear power doubt the program will spur construction of new commercial reactors as long as natural gas and renewable energy remain relatively cheap. 'New builds can’t compete with renewables,' says Robert Rosner, a physicist at the University of Chicago. 'Certainly not now.' ... "Ramana [U. of B.C. physicist] questions whether the U.S. nuclear industry can be saved. Although issues of dealing with waste and the public’s apprehension about radioactivity remain, the biggest issue confronting the nuclear industry is the high capital cost of new reactors, which can be $7 billion or more. In deregulated markets, utility companies cannot afford such capital expenses, which is why cheaper renewables may ultimately replace nuclear energy, he says. 'This is a sunset industry,' he says, 'and the sooner you recognize that the better.'[2] There are competing arguments in the same article, but the argument is between nuclear designs that only exist on paper and wind/solar technology that has already been built and is already providing electricity. If you want to put a shovel in the ground today and have renewable energy in a few months, it's possible with existing solar and wind at prices cheaper than any proposed idea for nuclear. Of course nuclear physicists want billions of dollars for R&D. Of course they believe they can create the one true design that doesn't have any of the fundamental problems of nuclear technology. But according to those people, even their best efforts won't produce any results for years and years. To put it into startup language, do you want to build a service using an architecture, language, and set of libraries that have been tested and used for years, or do you want to wait a decade and then start building on the latest holy grail platform that no one has successfully used in production? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source [2] https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/us-department-energy-rushes-build-advanced-new-nuclear-reactors https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/us-department-energy...