5 ms·

But these applications will appear.

ThomPete 6y ago
so will fusion. Much better to spend resources building high density energy like fusion than these Rube Goldberg machines.
- batpangolin 6y ago
  Are you suggesting that fusion is a close-to-viable technology which has been held back because it hasn't had enough research resources spent on it?
  - ThomPete 6y ago
    No,I am suggesting that its as close as the magic solutions to wind and solars intermittency issue we hear so much about and therefore the money would be better spent creating something as powerful as fusion than something to help a inferior and backwards looking type of energy that doesent even provide 1% of the worlds energy.
    - ben_w 6y ago
      The low end estimate for the cost of completing ITER is $22 billion, and it’s a 500 MW (thermal) output reactor. The cost estimate for batteries was about $137/kWh last year. Therefore, ITER costs about as much as ~160 GWh of storage, which is enough for the entire UK for 4 hours 40 minutes… or the thermal output of ITER for 13 days, 9 hours. Which is enough to cover even the least productive production gaps in combined wind and solar output. Also, those batteries are rechargeable and last at least 1000 cycles, which would be a bit more than 36.5 years of drain (even with negligible recharge time), which is 16.5 years longer than the planned lifetime of ITER. And remember, the batteries are made at a profit, even including the cost of building the factories.
      - ThomPete 6y ago
        wind and solar provides less than 1% of the worlds energy. That should provide you with a pretty good reason why your calculation is useless in this discussion.
        ben_w 6y ago
        PV alone made 3% of global electricity in 2019. Wind was 5.3% of global electricity demand in the same year. PV has been growing at close to ~37% per year (compound) since 1992, and at current rates will be making almost all electricity by 2025 and all power (i.e. enough to electrify transport, heat, etc.) by 2030. And given wind and solar are currently the two cheapest form of power, it is very plausible the growth of these two will continue at least to the 50% point.
        ThomPete 6y ago
        Electricity is less than 20% of the world energy consumption. I find it fascinating that a tech focused forum like HN is so intent on taking an inferior solutions like wind and solar which literally can't provide enough heat for the majority of needs we have, can't scale, requires insane amounts of land, requires complex daisy chains of different solutions to work, isn't reliable, requires absurd amounts of resources, needs backup from oil, coal, gas or nuclear and won't be able to deliver anything even close to useful baseload and most importantly is so inadequate when it comes to thinking about any future civilisations energy needs both in scale and density. A forum like this people still clings to these Rube Goldberg constellations and think they are somehow supportiing progress. Especially since 3billion people still don't have proper access to energy. Oh well.
        ben_w 6y ago
        > Electricity is less than 20% of the world energy consumption. I know. I made implicit reference to that with the 2025/2030 split. > I find it fascinating that a tech focused forum like HN is so intent on taking an inferior solutions like wind and solar which… Has it occurred to you that you might be… wrong? I mean, when I find myself disagreeing with a lot of smart people, I do ask myself that question. I could go thought all of your claims separately, but I’ve never found that to be successful at convincing anyone.

so will fusion. Much better to spend resources building high density energy like fusion than these Rube Goldberg machines.

batpangolin 6y ago
Are you suggesting that fusion is a close-to-viable technology which has been held back because it hasn't had enough research resources spent on it?
- ThomPete 6y ago
  No,I am suggesting that its as close as the magic solutions to wind and solars intermittency issue we hear so much about and therefore the money would be better spent creating something as powerful as fusion than something to help a inferior and backwards looking type of energy that doesent even provide 1% of the worlds energy.
  - ben_w 6y ago
    The low end estimate for the cost of completing ITER is $22 billion, and it’s a 500 MW (thermal) output reactor. The cost estimate for batteries was about $137/kWh last year. Therefore, ITER costs about as much as ~160 GWh of storage, which is enough for the entire UK for 4 hours 40 minutes… or the thermal output of ITER for 13 days, 9 hours. Which is enough to cover even the least productive production gaps in combined wind and solar output. Also, those batteries are rechargeable and last at least 1000 cycles, which would be a bit more than 36.5 years of drain (even with negligible recharge time), which is 16.5 years longer than the planned lifetime of ITER. And remember, the batteries are made at a profit, even including the cost of building the factories.
    - ThomPete 6y ago
      wind and solar provides less than 1% of the worlds energy. That should provide you with a pretty good reason why your calculation is useless in this discussion.
      - ben_w 6y ago
        PV alone made 3% of global electricity in 2019. Wind was 5.3% of global electricity demand in the same year. PV has been growing at close to ~37% per year (compound) since 1992, and at current rates will be making almost all electricity by 2025 and all power (i.e. enough to electrify transport, heat, etc.) by 2030. And given wind and solar are currently the two cheapest form of power, it is very plausible the growth of these two will continue at least to the 50% point.
        ThomPete 6y ago
        Electricity is less than 20% of the world energy consumption. I find it fascinating that a tech focused forum like HN is so intent on taking an inferior solutions like wind and solar which literally can't provide enough heat for the majority of needs we have, can't scale, requires insane amounts of land, requires complex daisy chains of different solutions to work, isn't reliable, requires absurd amounts of resources, needs backup from oil, coal, gas or nuclear and won't be able to deliver anything even close to useful baseload and most importantly is so inadequate when it comes to thinking about any future civilisations energy needs both in scale and density. A forum like this people still clings to these Rube Goldberg constellations and think they are somehow supportiing progress. Especially since 3billion people still don't have proper access to energy. Oh well.
        ben_w 6y ago
        > Electricity is less than 20% of the world energy consumption. I know. I made implicit reference to that with the 2025/2030 split. > I find it fascinating that a tech focused forum like HN is so intent on taking an inferior solutions like wind and solar which… Has it occurred to you that you might be… wrong? I mean, when I find myself disagreeing with a lot of smart people, I do ask myself that question. I could go thought all of your claims separately, but I’ve never found that to be successful at convincing anyone.