9 ms·

I just finished Bill Gates' "How to Avoid a Climate Disaster". Very good book, and it makes two points (among many others): - To reduce carbon in the air, gett

I just finished Bill Gates' "How to Avoid a Climate Disaster". Very good book, and it makes two points (among many others): - To reduce carbon in the air, getting clean electricity is key. If we can do that, we can more easily reduce emissions from other areas. - There are no paths to clean energy by 2050 without nuclear power.

outside1234 4y ago
* No paths to nighttime clean energy without nuclear power
- shepherdjerred 4y ago
  That’s the same thing
- defterGoose 4y ago
  You both just said the same thing.
  - BatFastard 4y ago
    poster added provision Nighttime energy.
    - neysofu 4y ago
      I believe parent was making a point that the nighttime vs daytime distinction is irrelevant, because the grid never goes to to sleep. Having sufficient clean energy during daytime only is not acceptable.
- Brometheus 4y ago
  https://www.e3dc.com/#Intro https://www.e3dc.com/#Intro
- tcfhgj 4y ago
  Why is that?
- pfdietz 4y ago
  Babcock and Wilcox have gotten out of the nuclear business. What business have they gotten into? Thermal storage of grid energy with a > 50% round trip efficiency. It heats sand with a compact resistive heater, stores the sand in insulated silos, and recovers the energy by a Brayton cycle system with a really interesting and compact fluidized bed heat exchanger. Storage capacity is sized for 100 hours of operation. Not just overnight, but four days. https://www.babcock.com/home/about/corporate/news/babcock-wilcox-nrel-sign-exclusive-ip-option-agreement-for-advanced-renewable-energy-storage https://www.babcock.com/home/about/corporate/news/babcock-wi... Westinghouse is also doing thermal grid storage now. Pumped TES can have a round trip efficiency > 60%. https://www.energy-storage.news/nuclear-power-company-westinghouse-to-build-2gwh-pumped-heat-storage-in-bulgaria/ https://www.energy-storage.news/nuclear-power-company-westin...
heretogetout 4y ago
How many GW of wind, solar, and nuclear can we bring online in the next 28 years?
- ben_w 4y ago
  In 2021, we added this many new gigawatts: 183 PV[0], 100 wind[1], 7.88 nuclear (but 8.6 nuclear was also shut down)[2] 28 times that, ignoring the shutdowns (I don't actually know how long wind lasts, IIRC nuclear is "about 50-70 years" and PV is "about 30 years"), gives a total of: 5124 GW PV, 2800 GW wind, 218 GW nuclear. But that's a lower bound for PV, as that's growing with what looks like an approximately exponential long-term trend (since 1992) of 36.5% per year. While such a growth rate is physically possible to maintain for 28 years even without going into space, given that if we did make so much we wouldn't merely give everyone an American lifestyle but also be able to get the entire human population continuously flying[3], I'm assuming it will turn into a sigmoid before then. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_photovoltaics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_photovoltaics [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_nuclear_reactors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_nuclear_rea... [3] https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=%28105*1.365%5E%2828%2B2021-1992%29+MW%29+%2F+10+billion https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=%28105*1.365%5E%2828%2B...
  - mlyle 4y ago
    The thing is, 183GW from PV is like 20-30GW of nuclear, because nuclear's capacity factor is near 100% and PV's is often near 10%. Storage seems hard and expensive. We're going to need a whole lot of approaches: - Wind taking a bigger share of renewables - Whatever storage we can reasonably build, including some exotic stuff like power-to-gas-to-power. - Nuclear filling in a little bit - PV comically overbuilt and routinely throwing away a lot of power midday on most days. - Still peaking off natural gas, a little bit.
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      Renewables' capacity factor is much greater than 10%, in practice. If you need falsehoods to make your case, you have no case.
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
> There are no paths to clean energy by 2050 without nuclear power. This is either stupidly wrong or stupidly right. Stupidly right, there's fairly new nuclear plants in operation that there's no real reason to shut down, so will probably be running in 2050. Stupidly wrong, it seems to be placing some entirely unwarranted implication that without nuclear we'd be lost, when most serious analysis agree that renewables will be about 80% of energy production, which doesn't really leave much room for nuclear to take all the credit. IEA's net zero roadmap: > In the net zero pathway, global energy demand in 2050 is around 8% smaller than today, but it serves an economy more than twice as big and a population with 2 billion more people. More efficient use of energy, resource efficiency and behavioural changes combine to offset increases in demand for energy services as the world economy grows and access to energy is extended to all. > Instead of fossil fuels, the energy sector is based largely on renewable energy. Two-thirds of total energy supply in 2050 is from wind, solar, bioenergy, geothermal and hydro energy. Solar becomes the largest source, accounting for one-fifth of energy supplies. Solar PV capacity increases 20-fold between now and 2050, and wind power 11-fold. > Net zero means a huge decline in the use of fossil fuels. They fall from almost four-fifths of total energy supply today to slightly over one-fifth by 2050. Fossil fuels that remain in 2050 are used in goods where the carbon is embodied in the product such as plastics, in facilities fitted with CCUS, and in sectors where low-emissions technology options are scarce. > Electricity accounts for almost 50% of total energy consumption in 2050. It plays a key role across all sectors – from transport and buildings to industry – and is essential to produce low-emissions fuels such as hydrogen. To achieve this, total electricity generation increases over two-and-a-half-times between today and 2050. At the same time, no additional new final investment decisions should be taken for new unabated coal plants, the least efficient coal plants are phased out by 2030, and the remaining coal plants still in use by 2040 are retrofitted. By 2050, almost 90% of electricity generation comes from renewable sources, with wind and solar PV together accounting for nearly 70%. Most of the remainder comes from nuclear.
- BenoitP 4y ago
  > most serious analysis agree that renewables will be about 80% Well, let's see them; and see how much they rely on yet to be proven industrially new storage tech (and without humongous mining activity)
boringg 4y ago
Bill Gates, while wealthy and renowned for his tech contributions, has had some missteps in the climate energy space slowing down actual progress with his diversions (i.e. putting money/political will into new moon shots and saying that we don't have the technology to deal with this yet -- instead of deploying readily available technology which is ready).
- dane-pgp 4y ago
  > instead of deploying readily available technology Well there's no opportunity for him to make inflated profits off a technology that he can't patent... https://www.wired.com/story/opinion-the-world-loses-under-bill-gates-vaccine-colonialism/ https://www.wired.com/story/opinion-the-world-loses-under-bi...
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Bill Gates has not, in fact, been responsible for tech contributions. His effect has been balefully negative, from the get-go. He is personally responsible for "have you tried turning it off and on again?". Before MS, that was plenty of reason to demand a refund.

outside1234 4y ago

* No paths to nighttime clean energy without nuclear power

shepherdjerred 4y ago
That’s the same thing
defterGoose 4y ago
You both just said the same thing.
- BatFastard 4y ago
  poster added provision Nighttime energy.
  - neysofu 4y ago
    I believe parent was making a point that the nighttime vs daytime distinction is irrelevant, because the grid never goes to to sleep. Having sufficient clean energy during daytime only is not acceptable.
Brometheus 4y ago
https://www.e3dc.com/#Intro https://www.e3dc.com/#Intro
tcfhgj 4y ago
Why is that?
pfdietz 4y ago
Babcock and Wilcox have gotten out of the nuclear business. What business have they gotten into? Thermal storage of grid energy with a > 50% round trip efficiency. It heats sand with a compact resistive heater, stores the sand in insulated silos, and recovers the energy by a Brayton cycle system with a really interesting and compact fluidized bed heat exchanger. Storage capacity is sized for 100 hours of operation. Not just overnight, but four days. https://www.babcock.com/home/about/corporate/news/babcock-wilcox-nrel-sign-exclusive-ip-option-agreement-for-advanced-renewable-energy-storage https://www.babcock.com/home/about/corporate/news/babcock-wi... Westinghouse is also doing thermal grid storage now. Pumped TES can have a round trip efficiency > 60%. https://www.energy-storage.news/nuclear-power-company-westinghouse-to-build-2gwh-pumped-heat-storage-in-bulgaria/ https://www.energy-storage.news/nuclear-power-company-westin...

heretogetout 4y ago

How many GW of wind, solar, and nuclear can we bring online in the next 28 years?

ben_w 4y ago
In 2021, we added this many new gigawatts: 183 PV[0], 100 wind[1], 7.88 nuclear (but 8.6 nuclear was also shut down)[2] 28 times that, ignoring the shutdowns (I don't actually know how long wind lasts, IIRC nuclear is "about 50-70 years" and PV is "about 30 years"), gives a total of: 5124 GW PV, 2800 GW wind, 218 GW nuclear. But that's a lower bound for PV, as that's growing with what looks like an approximately exponential long-term trend (since 1992) of 36.5% per year. While such a growth rate is physically possible to maintain for 28 years even without going into space, given that if we did make so much we wouldn't merely give everyone an American lifestyle but also be able to get the entire human population continuously flying[3], I'm assuming it will turn into a sigmoid before then. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_photovoltaics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_photovoltaics [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_nuclear_reactors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_nuclear_rea... [3] https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=%28105*1.365%5E%2828%2B2021-1992%29+MW%29+%2F+10+billion https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=%28105*1.365%5E%2828%2B...
- mlyle 4y ago
  The thing is, 183GW from PV is like 20-30GW of nuclear, because nuclear's capacity factor is near 100% and PV's is often near 10%. Storage seems hard and expensive. We're going to need a whole lot of approaches: - Wind taking a bigger share of renewables - Whatever storage we can reasonably build, including some exotic stuff like power-to-gas-to-power. - Nuclear filling in a little bit - PV comically overbuilt and routinely throwing away a lot of power midday on most days. - Still peaking off natural gas, a little bit.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    Renewables' capacity factor is much greater than 10%, in practice. If you need falsehoods to make your case, you have no case.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

> There are no paths to clean energy by 2050 without nuclear power. This is either stupidly wrong or stupidly right. Stupidly right, there's fairly new nuclear plants in operation that there's no real reason to shut down, so will probably be running in 2050. Stupidly wrong, it seems to be placing some entirely unwarranted implication that without nuclear we'd be lost, when most serious analysis agree that renewables will be about 80% of energy production, which doesn't really leave much room for nuclear to take all the credit. IEA's net zero roadmap: > In the net zero pathway, global energy demand in 2050 is around 8% smaller than today, but it serves an economy more than twice as big and a population with 2 billion more people. More efficient use of energy, resource efficiency and behavioural changes combine to offset increases in demand for energy services as the world economy grows and access to energy is extended to all. > Instead of fossil fuels, the energy sector is based largely on renewable energy. Two-thirds of total energy supply in 2050 is from wind, solar, bioenergy, geothermal and hydro energy. Solar becomes the largest source, accounting for one-fifth of energy supplies. Solar PV capacity increases 20-fold between now and 2050, and wind power 11-fold. > Net zero means a huge decline in the use of fossil fuels. They fall from almost four-fifths of total energy supply today to slightly over one-fifth by 2050. Fossil fuels that remain in 2050 are used in goods where the carbon is embodied in the product such as plastics, in facilities fitted with CCUS, and in sectors where low-emissions technology options are scarce. > Electricity accounts for almost 50% of total energy consumption in 2050. It plays a key role across all sectors – from transport and buildings to industry – and is essential to produce low-emissions fuels such as hydrogen. To achieve this, total electricity generation increases over two-and-a-half-times between today and 2050. At the same time, no additional new final investment decisions should be taken for new unabated coal plants, the least efficient coal plants are phased out by 2030, and the remaining coal plants still in use by 2040 are retrofitted. By 2050, almost 90% of electricity generation comes from renewable sources, with wind and solar PV together accounting for nearly 70%. Most of the remainder comes from nuclear.

BenoitP 4y ago
> most serious analysis agree that renewables will be about 80% Well, let's see them; and see how much they rely on yet to be proven industrially new storage tech (and without humongous mining activity)

boringg 4y ago

Bill Gates, while wealthy and renowned for his tech contributions, has had some missteps in the climate energy space slowing down actual progress with his diversions (i.e. putting money/political will into new moon shots and saying that we don't have the technology to deal with this yet -- instead of deploying readily available technology which is ready).

dane-pgp 4y ago
> instead of deploying readily available technology Well there's no opportunity for him to make inflated profits off a technology that he can't patent... https://www.wired.com/story/opinion-the-world-loses-under-bill-gates-vaccine-colonialism/ https://www.wired.com/story/opinion-the-world-loses-under-bi...
ncmncm 4y ago
Bill Gates has not, in fact, been responsible for tech contributions. His effect has been balefully negative, from the get-go. He is personally responsible for "have you tried turning it off and on again?". Before MS, that was plenty of reason to demand a refund.