5 ms·

Automobiles solved the problem of knee deep horse manure in New York City once and for all. In exchange for poisoning the air, killing streetcars, and (with t

by vanusa 5y ago

Automobiles solved the problem of knee deep horse manure in New York City once and for all. In exchange for poisoning the air, killing streetcars, and (with the help of farcically idealistic mid-century urban planning) decimating whole communities, physically and spiritually (not so coincidentally with disproportionate effects on certain disadvantaged groups). A silver bullet to the horse manure problem, perhaps, but to the sustainable public transport problem .. a dull hammer, wouldn't you think? Just as coal was a revolution over wood, and natural gas over coal, so too can imperfect solar, wind, or nuclear be over natural gas. Or perhaps GMOs will help us reverse some of the sins of today’s mono crops. I agree that both nukes and GMOs can potentially be part of the arsenal of approaches to these problems. But to anoint them as our "best" solutions to these problem strikes me as fanciful, to say the least.

mlyle 5y ago
> I agree that both nukes and GMOs can potentially be part of the arsenal of approaches to these problems. But to anoint them as our "best" solutions to these problem strikes me as fanciful, to say the least. I'd maybe call them our best insufficiently-used solutions: things that we can most easily do a bunch more of and make a big difference. They won't get the job done on their own (e.g. nuke plants don't solve the transport / liquid fuels problem, but they contribute to plentiful base load which could even be helpful as part of solving that).
- ncmncm 5y ago
  Each penny spent propping up nukes, instead of building out solar and wind, brings climate disaster incrementally nearer.
  - mlyle 5y ago
    We need to do all the things: Improve grid interconnections to tolerate more renewables; add storage; overprovision renewables; and add non-polluting base load power that doesn't need storage. Nuclear is the latter. And it's a mistake to think that doing more of one necessarily means doing substantially less of the others. Overnight we burn a lot of natural gas here in California. It's not going to be feasible to build enough wind to meet current demand, and storage doesn't look practical to get the job done either. And nighttime demand can be expected to go up a lot as people buy electric cars.
    - ncmncm 5y ago
      Money is fungible. Each cent spent on X is a cent not spent on Y. Nuke costs are going up, not down. Lately, it is at $billions for zero watts. "Not going to be feasible", and "doesn't look practical" are not based in fact. Storage is not being built out yet because solar watts still displace NG watts, 1:1, and storage cost is falling even faster than solar. But the iron-air battery factories we will need are now under construction.
      - mlyle 5y ago
        > Money is fungible. Each cent spent on X is a cent not spent on Y. Money is fungible, but the supply curves for nuclear plants, solar panels, storage, etc, are not flat. Further, as a political reality: the money allocated to renewable subsidies and nuclear subsidies isn't a direct exchange. If you convince governments to subsidize nuclear $20B less, you don't magically get $20B more for renewables. > Nuke costs are going up, not down. Yup, and why is that? Certainly that has something to do with the current regulatory environment and the scale at which nuclear is deployed. I.e. there's no magical way it has gotten "harder" other than us doing it less and losing expertise. > "Not going to be feasible", and "doesn't look practical" are not based in fact. Storage is not being built out yet because solar watts still displace NG watts, 1:1 In summer, we already have wholesale power costs dip negative at midday from time to time. That's going to become more pronounced. And at night, we have about 16GW of natural gas (counting imports) vs. 3GW of wind (counting imports) here in California. Maybe we can triple wind with a massive investment, but IMO that's about the point where we're going to see significantly diminished returns. And this is one of the markets that has most aggressively deployed renewables in the US and has some of the best resources for solar and wind outside of the desert. A few GW more of nuclear in the mix would make a significant difference. All these numbers are about present demand, too. Increased vehicle electrification is going to push up nighttime demand further.
        ncmncm 5y ago
        A few more GW of nuke plants under construction would produce exactly zero actual watts, but would suck up dollars that could otherwise be spent building out wind and solar that would produce immediately. So, that is a strong net negative. If the nukes ever did come online, years on, their power would then be unable to compete on price with wind and storage, costs of which are still plummeting. More likely, they would be cancelled first, and the money, real estate, and concrete wasted. Putting those $billions into offshore wind, HVDC transmission lines, hydrolysis, and underground hydrogen storage would be an overwhelmingly better use. Current NG plants can switch over incrementally to burn H2 as it becomes available.
  - jimbokun 5y ago
    You really need to back up that claim with some evidence. My understanding is that solar is still too inconsistent to be the sole energy source for a power grid, but solar + nuclear could be. Thinking solar can be a complete near term solution to carbon emissions strikes me as faith based reasoning, without fundamental break through sin batttery technology.
    - ncmncm 5y ago
      Iron-air batteries are proven tech. The factories are already under construction. Underground hydrogen storage is mature; you put hydrogen in the same underground caverns where NG is now stored, and burn it in the same turbines. You can add hydrogen to the NG already stored. Over time, the H2 fraction grows. This being done today in Utah and England. Recent experience with nuke construction is that they consume $billions and produce exactly zero watts. The latest is $30 billion already spent on an unfinished and probably soon cancelled 2GW plant, because it would take more $billions to finish, and would then be unable to compete on price.
      - mlyle 5y ago
        > Iron-air batteries are proven tech. I don't think you can fairly call anything that hasn't ever even provided .1% of the power in a grid "proven tech" with a known economic picture. > Underground hydrogen storage is mature; Electrolyzing hydrogen at scale isn't, and the economics of electrolyzer cells are still awful. > Recent experience with nuke construction is that they consume $billions and produce exactly zero watts. I think it's interesting you wave away all the economics and practical problems with renewables, but ignore the fact that humankind has a long successful economic history of nuclear production and presumably could do this again if there were the political will. E.g. you make nuclear being hard into a self-fulfilling prophecy.
        ncmncm 5y ago
        Nuclear is mature tech. There are no surprises in store. About all we can look forward to is less-leaky plants, maybe, and lack of meltdown risk. Renewables get good news all the time. We know solar will be X% cheaper next year, wind Y%, and storage Z%, for years to come. Electrolytic production of H2 and NH3 is improving fast, with increasingly cheaper catalysts being discovered all the time. If safe nuke plants could be built without pervasive (wholly legal!) corruption, 3GW in 3 years for $3B, I might be all for it. But I don't know any way to get there.

by vanusa 5y ago

mlyle 5y ago

> I agree that both nukes and GMOs can potentially be part of the arsenal of approaches to these problems. But to anoint them as our "best" solutions to these problem strikes me as fanciful, to say the least. I'd maybe call them our best insufficiently-used solutions: things that we can most easily do a bunch more of and make a big difference. They won't get the job done on their own (e.g. nuke plants don't solve the transport / liquid fuels problem, but they contribute to plentiful base load which could even be helpful as part of solving that).

ncmncm 5y ago
Each penny spent propping up nukes, instead of building out solar and wind, brings climate disaster incrementally nearer.
- mlyle 5y ago
  We need to do all the things: Improve grid interconnections to tolerate more renewables; add storage; overprovision renewables; and add non-polluting base load power that doesn't need storage. Nuclear is the latter. And it's a mistake to think that doing more of one necessarily means doing substantially less of the others. Overnight we burn a lot of natural gas here in California. It's not going to be feasible to build enough wind to meet current demand, and storage doesn't look practical to get the job done either. And nighttime demand can be expected to go up a lot as people buy electric cars.
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    Money is fungible. Each cent spent on X is a cent not spent on Y. Nuke costs are going up, not down. Lately, it is at $billions for zero watts. "Not going to be feasible", and "doesn't look practical" are not based in fact. Storage is not being built out yet because solar watts still displace NG watts, 1:1, and storage cost is falling even faster than solar. But the iron-air battery factories we will need are now under construction.
    - mlyle 5y ago
      > Money is fungible. Each cent spent on X is a cent not spent on Y. Money is fungible, but the supply curves for nuclear plants, solar panels, storage, etc, are not flat. Further, as a political reality: the money allocated to renewable subsidies and nuclear subsidies isn't a direct exchange. If you convince governments to subsidize nuclear $20B less, you don't magically get $20B more for renewables. > Nuke costs are going up, not down. Yup, and why is that? Certainly that has something to do with the current regulatory environment and the scale at which nuclear is deployed. I.e. there's no magical way it has gotten "harder" other than us doing it less and losing expertise. > "Not going to be feasible", and "doesn't look practical" are not based in fact. Storage is not being built out yet because solar watts still displace NG watts, 1:1 In summer, we already have wholesale power costs dip negative at midday from time to time. That's going to become more pronounced. And at night, we have about 16GW of natural gas (counting imports) vs. 3GW of wind (counting imports) here in California. Maybe we can triple wind with a massive investment, but IMO that's about the point where we're going to see significantly diminished returns. And this is one of the markets that has most aggressively deployed renewables in the US and has some of the best resources for solar and wind outside of the desert. A few GW more of nuclear in the mix would make a significant difference. All these numbers are about present demand, too. Increased vehicle electrification is going to push up nighttime demand further.
      - ncmncm 5y ago
        A few more GW of nuke plants under construction would produce exactly zero actual watts, but would suck up dollars that could otherwise be spent building out wind and solar that would produce immediately. So, that is a strong net negative. If the nukes ever did come online, years on, their power would then be unable to compete on price with wind and storage, costs of which are still plummeting. More likely, they would be cancelled first, and the money, real estate, and concrete wasted. Putting those $billions into offshore wind, HVDC transmission lines, hydrolysis, and underground hydrogen storage would be an overwhelmingly better use. Current NG plants can switch over incrementally to burn H2 as it becomes available.
- jimbokun 5y ago
  You really need to back up that claim with some evidence. My understanding is that solar is still too inconsistent to be the sole energy source for a power grid, but solar + nuclear could be. Thinking solar can be a complete near term solution to carbon emissions strikes me as faith based reasoning, without fundamental break through sin batttery technology.
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    Iron-air batteries are proven tech. The factories are already under construction. Underground hydrogen storage is mature; you put hydrogen in the same underground caverns where NG is now stored, and burn it in the same turbines. You can add hydrogen to the NG already stored. Over time, the H2 fraction grows. This being done today in Utah and England. Recent experience with nuke construction is that they consume $billions and produce exactly zero watts. The latest is $30 billion already spent on an unfinished and probably soon cancelled 2GW plant, because it would take more $billions to finish, and would then be unable to compete on price.
    - mlyle 5y ago
      > Iron-air batteries are proven tech. I don't think you can fairly call anything that hasn't ever even provided .1% of the power in a grid "proven tech" with a known economic picture. > Underground hydrogen storage is mature; Electrolyzing hydrogen at scale isn't, and the economics of electrolyzer cells are still awful. > Recent experience with nuke construction is that they consume $billions and produce exactly zero watts. I think it's interesting you wave away all the economics and practical problems with renewables, but ignore the fact that humankind has a long successful economic history of nuclear production and presumably could do this again if there were the political will. E.g. you make nuclear being hard into a self-fulfilling prophecy.
      - ncmncm 5y ago
        Nuclear is mature tech. There are no surprises in store. About all we can look forward to is less-leaky plants, maybe, and lack of meltdown risk. Renewables get good news all the time. We know solar will be X% cheaper next year, wind Y%, and storage Z%, for years to come. Electrolytic production of H2 and NH3 is improving fast, with increasingly cheaper catalysts being discovered all the time. If safe nuke plants could be built without pervasive (wholly legal!) corruption, 3GW in 3 years for $3B, I might be all for it. But I don't know any way to get there.