3 ms·

Why focus on poor countries? Exactly for the reasons you mention I see only developed countries do this. For the aluminium processing type plants issue, it app

by spockz 5y ago

Why focus on poor countries? Exactly for the reasons you mention I see only developed countries do this. For the aluminium processing type plants issue, it appears steel plants and other heavy industry here in the Netherlands are investing in their own power/heat storage capabilities. Exactly so that they can operate on their own terms instead of the net having to develop a generic power storing solution.

panick21_ 5y ago
Because no amount of changing the power mix in Europe will prevent climate change. Indonesia is gigantic has a huge population and will have a massive amount energy needs. If not nuclear this will be coal. And those plants have 50 year lifetime at least. The reality is that climate change will be decided in India, Indonesia and China more then anywhere else. If they can actually adopt nuclear and be a pro nuclear society they have the potential to have game changing impact. Indonesia in particular has gigantic amount of people living at the cost. So an approach where you do centralized building and then ship the plants to the population makes a lot of sense. And Indonesia by itself is big enough that its actually worth building such a model. They will need 100s of GWs of reactors if they want to reach Western standards of power consumption. > investing in their own power/heat storage capabilities Yes and that costs a lot of money. Europe is also in a Europe wide power net with lots of nuclear, coal and renewables. Doing that in such a system is much more doable then in Indonesia.
- ncmncm 5y ago
  Indonesia will, like everywhere else, end up relying on overwhelmingly cheaper renewables. Nukes will turn out to be a very expensive detour. We can only hope, for the sake of these put-upon people, that they abandon the nukes before they spend too much on them. Storage and distribution of synthethic liquid fuels such as ammonia will probably be best adapted to Indonesian needs.
  - panick21_ 5y ago
    Well you should have told them because they are planning to build many more coal plants. And even the basic infrastructure of the grid that is absolutely required for renewables to be even remotely practical doesn't exist. Wasting gigantic amounts of energy to produce chemical fuel highly inefficiently with low utility plants, and then transporting them around to then burn them up again highly inefficiently is a terrible plan to power a country of 100s of millions of people.
    - ncmncm 5y ago
      They will regret building coal plants as the cost of renewables plummets past coal. Then, they will need to convert their coal plants to burn hydrogen or ammonia, or retire them in favor of better methods, after this expensive detour. But the builders of coal plants will have done fine. "Waste" is a curious concept applied to something with zero marginal cost. If not used to synthesize fuel, the insolation would have been wasted. Instead, it synthesizes useful fuel, that also fuels the ship taking it where it is needed. Indonesia will be able to build their own solar farms and synthesizers, and end up exporting their excess in the temperate countries' winter, provided they can escape the grip of the oligarchists.

by spockz 5y ago

panick21_ 5y ago

Because no amount of changing the power mix in Europe will prevent climate change. Indonesia is gigantic has a huge population and will have a massive amount energy needs. If not nuclear this will be coal. And those plants have 50 year lifetime at least. The reality is that climate change will be decided in India, Indonesia and China more then anywhere else. If they can actually adopt nuclear and be a pro nuclear society they have the potential to have game changing impact. Indonesia in particular has gigantic amount of people living at the cost. So an approach where you do centralized building and then ship the plants to the population makes a lot of sense. And Indonesia by itself is big enough that its actually worth building such a model. They will need 100s of GWs of reactors if they want to reach Western standards of power consumption. > investing in their own power/heat storage capabilities Yes and that costs a lot of money. Europe is also in a Europe wide power net with lots of nuclear, coal and renewables. Doing that in such a system is much more doable then in Indonesia.

ncmncm 5y ago
Indonesia will, like everywhere else, end up relying on overwhelmingly cheaper renewables. Nukes will turn out to be a very expensive detour. We can only hope, for the sake of these put-upon people, that they abandon the nukes before they spend too much on them. Storage and distribution of synthethic liquid fuels such as ammonia will probably be best adapted to Indonesian needs.
- panick21_ 5y ago
  Well you should have told them because they are planning to build many more coal plants. And even the basic infrastructure of the grid that is absolutely required for renewables to be even remotely practical doesn't exist. Wasting gigantic amounts of energy to produce chemical fuel highly inefficiently with low utility plants, and then transporting them around to then burn them up again highly inefficiently is a terrible plan to power a country of 100s of millions of people.
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    They will regret building coal plants as the cost of renewables plummets past coal. Then, they will need to convert their coal plants to burn hydrogen or ammonia, or retire them in favor of better methods, after this expensive detour. But the builders of coal plants will have done fine. "Waste" is a curious concept applied to something with zero marginal cost. If not used to synthesize fuel, the insolation would have been wasted. Instead, it synthesizes useful fuel, that also fuels the ship taking it where it is needed. Indonesia will be able to build their own solar farms and synthesizers, and end up exporting their excess in the temperate countries' winter, provided they can escape the grip of the oligarchists.