4 ms·

>Sustainable Energy: Without The Hot Air This book has come up on Hacker News before, and I've read it, and it has a crucial flaw, well, two actually: - It un

by scythe 4y ago

>Sustainable Energy: Without The Hot Air This book has come up on Hacker News before, and I've read it, and it has a crucial flaw, well, two actually: - It underestimates the efficiency of solar panels by quite a bit, supposing that 10% would be a lofty goal (and arguing on this basis that solar farms are not economically viable). In fact, panels on the market are approaching 20% [1], and 25% seems well within reach. - It uses the United Kingdom, one of the dimmest countries in the world [2] and one of the most densely populated, as an index for the viability of solar power in any country. In fact, the UK is probably the worst-case geography+population for solar power, and almost every other country would have a better time of it. In this context, it is worth considering that nuclear power may be particularly appropriate for Europe specifically, since it is peaceful, densely populated, mostly north of the 45th parallel, and cloudy, but solar is probably more practical elsewhere. The real problem with cost estimates for solar and wind power is that they do not necessarily adjust well for the rate of construction. They may be reasonably accurate assuming a constant rate of construction, but a truly worthwhile implementation of solar and wind power would require a much higher rate of construction than is currently being implemented. I rarely see much of the methodology of these studies, but what I have seen basically involves taking the current price of solar and battery installations, applying a few fudge factors, and scaling up linearly. That may not be realistic. Meanwhile, the cost estimates for nuclear power are based on data from the construction of large facilities, and therefore necessarily incorporate a much more realistic high rate of investment. Nuclear plants are big. 1: https://css.umich.edu/publications/factsheets/energy/photovoltaic-energy-factsheet https://css.umich.edu/publications/factsheets/energy/photovo... 2: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/World_DNI_Solar-resource-map_GlobalSolarAtlas_World-Bank-Esmap-Solargis.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/World_DN...

ZeroGravitas 4y ago
The book doesn't actually use british solar numbers for the rest of the world, it even suggests shipping in solar energy derived fuels from other countries to the UK and that even including the extra conversion and shipping/transmission costs would be competitive with nuclear built in the UK, which implies its a no-brainer for those source nations to use it for their own power. Where it feels a little parochial, is its focus on the UK as if the GDP or population of the UK matters in the context of a global issue like sustainable energy. It simply doesn't and he has enough facts and figures available even at that time to put that together, but probably fell into the classic british position of assuming they are more important than they really are in a global context. Anyone outside the UK must read it in the same way people in the UK would read a small island dweller writing "Yes this might work for most of the UK but the Isle of Man would need to import power, which is simply unthinkable, even though it already does, so maybe we should build nuclear there instead to maintain the islands sovereignty". Or maybe we can discount the needs of half a percent of the population if they run counter to the needs of the other 99.5% and focus on the big picture? In the end we didn't need to as the wind power, heat pumps, EVs and carbon fees required for the UK overlapped heavily with other nations but this was a clear blindspot which I think you are charitably interpreting as a silly mistake when really it's more akin to arrogance.
pfdietz 4y ago
I believe it also assumes significant input from biomass, which has a very large effect on the amount of land area needed because of the extremely low power/area of biomass.

by scythe 4y ago

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

The book doesn't actually use british solar numbers for the rest of the world, it even suggests shipping in solar energy derived fuels from other countries to the UK and that even including the extra conversion and shipping/transmission costs would be competitive with nuclear built in the UK, which implies its a no-brainer for those source nations to use it for their own power. Where it feels a little parochial, is its focus on the UK as if the GDP or population of the UK matters in the context of a global issue like sustainable energy. It simply doesn't and he has enough facts and figures available even at that time to put that together, but probably fell into the classic british position of assuming they are more important than they really are in a global context. Anyone outside the UK must read it in the same way people in the UK would read a small island dweller writing "Yes this might work for most of the UK but the Isle of Man would need to import power, which is simply unthinkable, even though it already does, so maybe we should build nuclear there instead to maintain the islands sovereignty". Or maybe we can discount the needs of half a percent of the population if they run counter to the needs of the other 99.5% and focus on the big picture? In the end we didn't need to as the wind power, heat pumps, EVs and carbon fees required for the UK overlapped heavily with other nations but this was a clear blindspot which I think you are charitably interpreting as a silly mistake when really it's more akin to arrogance.

pfdietz 4y ago

I believe it also assumes significant input from biomass, which has a very large effect on the amount of land area needed because of the extremely low power/area of biomass.