4 ms·

Your comment loses it's value when you're trying to poke all the holes. > Storage is also plunging in cost, and additional technologies are already in commerci

Your comment loses it's value when you're trying to poke all the holes. > Storage is also plunging in cost, and additional technologies are already in commercial use (iron flow, for example.) > HVDC transmission is spreading, with higher capacity, lower cost, and higher efficiency for moving electricity greater distances (in other words, it's less of a deal if it's really windy in one spot and not in another, and ideally-suited wind sites can be further from where electricity is needed.) How do you transform DC up and down? By converting it to AC. Running it through a transformer and converting it back, HVDC isn't gonna take over the world, certain stretches might be HVDC where beneficial but not all over the world. The difference with nuclear is that anyone can build and operate next-gen storage, so you're commercial right out the door. I could hook my UPS up to the grid and feed back, commercial success! > Wind and solar are as distributable and scaleable as you want. Not without storage, which is harder to scale than production of other kinds. > You don't need to worry about geological stability with wind and solar. I don't see the USP, there are plenty of geologically stable areas in most countries. > Wind and solar don't require tens or hundreds of megawatts of cold-start / post-operation (cooling) power. They have the added downside of only producing power when the weather guy says so. > Wind/solar don't generate waste that is weaponizeable. Good point, for now. > You don't need a highly trained workforce to install, operate, repair, and decommission wind/solar. No, you need a disposable workforce that can die from workforce accidents without anyone batting an eye. Bill Gates is a good example of someone with a bit of time around the smartest people on earth asking for advice where he can make a difference, here's a TED talk where he explains that we'll need all solutions to come together rather than one single silver bullet: https://youtu.be/JaF-fq2Zn7I https://youtu.be/JaF-fq2Zn7I Does it sound reasonable that we should use all good tech we have? To me it does, and it includes all energy sources in different amounts and situations.

ineedasername 5y ago
>here's a TED talk where he explains that we'll need all solutions to come together rather than one single silver bullet Yes, this is a core problem. It seems like a large number of people want to focus on only one solution. They complain that solutions $X is more expensive or solution $Y is less proven or solution $Z isn't consistent. That sounds like a great reason to embrace them all to have each one's strengths complement the other's weaknesses. Cost should also be a secondary issue to speed of scale out & reliability. We're racing a clock where going too slow has its own costs, in capital & lives. It should be a factor but not the factor.

ineedasername 5y ago

>here's a TED talk where he explains that we'll need all solutions to come together rather than one single silver bullet Yes, this is a core problem. It seems like a large number of people want to focus on only one solution. They complain that solutions $X is more expensive or solution $Y is less proven or solution $Z isn't consistent. That sounds like a great reason to embrace them all to have each one's strengths complement the other's weaknesses. Cost should also be a secondary issue to speed of scale out & reliability. We're racing a clock where going too slow has its own costs, in capital & lives. It should be a factor but not the factor.