4 ms·

I wrote this summary of what emissions sources matter if you want to move the needle, and how reputable sources argue for resolving them: https://climate.davis-

I wrote this summary of what emissions sources matter if you want to move the needle, and how reputable sources argue for resolving them: https://climate.davis-hansson.com/p/big-picture-2020/ https://climate.davis-hansson.com/p/big-picture-2020/ I used that as a basis to look for roles that - I imagined - actually would help make a dent. In the end, I took a job in the smart electric grid space, writing code to help the EU grid take on more cheap renewable generators at Tibber. There’s a lot of software in many of these spaces! Decarbonising the grid, electrifying transport, building heat and industry, reducing agricultural emissions and so on.

idontwantthis 4y ago
Did that require any additional knowledge or training in electricity or physics?
- jakewins 4y ago
  Some roles at my current gig for sure does, but most do not. Tons of space for people with general experience in a very broad set of software skills - machine learning, general “backend dev”, apps devs, embedded devs. There’s a lot of pairing people with general “here’s how you ship software” background and people with “here’s how the grid works” experience, doing skills transfer. Part of the effort here ends up being training a whole cadre of people on how the grid works. My email is in my profile if you want help trying to find gigs in US or EU in this space.
  - idontwantthis 4y ago
    Thanks a lot! I won’t be looking for at least a year, but I will hit you up when I am.
WillPostForFood 4y ago
If the plan is to "electrify everything" and reduce emissions by 50% by 2030, how can you not even mention nuclear power once?
- ggm 4y ago
  Because the cost of construction AND timeline is not achievable before 2030 so the contribution of nuclear to the problem is post-2030. At best? you help to secure this form of power for 2040 and beyond. All nuclear under construction you are unable to shift its timeline. All nuclear in planning is subject to the regulatory delay of 10-15 years. The SMR push is not going to deliver power at scale by 2030, it will have at best a small handfull of megawatt units, when the demand is for terawatts. If you invest in smart grid assist to balance wind, solar, battery, pumped hydro and can mitigate coal and gas load NOW then, as a new entrant, you have the choice to do that, or to invest in the longer term problem. If you want to invest in longterm Nuclear is no worse or better than any other choice. If you can reduce the cost of capital or increase productive efficiency now of the non-nuclear low carbon energy and grid, over the 10 year window you may have more effect. There is nothing a new entrant engineer can do, to speed up nuclear. Its in regulatory and lawsuit hell. The engineer can help PV/Wind/Battery right now. It's a choice, and goes to net present value, shape of the curve moving load, linear optimisation of choices...
  - epistasis 4y ago
    Sometimes I wonder if people actually care about the climate at all, or if nuclear is just a political wedge issue used to distract from real solutions right now.
    - ggm 4y ago
      I think even people of good intent get stuck on blame-shifting and hindsight. I opposed Torness (UK) in the 70s. I now would not protest an AGR, I think we need more nuclear not less. But, the time has passed where its economically viable in the necessary time window, for Australian power needs. LCOE, and time to construct has moved to wind, wave, solar and storage. Some people can't get over this, and are stuck on energy density and scale.
      - HPsquared 4y ago
        Nuclear power has a lot of room for improvement. The problems are related to cost and complexity of the specific designs, not fundamental to the physics of using nuclear reactions for energy. Much like early computers, the current designs are large and difficult to build. There is a lot of potential to scale down and reduce costs, like was done for computers. Molten salt reactors, for instance, offer a massive potential reduction in size and complexity (they eliminate a lot of the risks of water-cooled designs, so shouldn't need the same kind of massive containment structure to contain e.g. large volumes of highly radioactive steam in the event of a failure). If next-gen fission research got even 10% of the resources that are currently spent on fusion, I think we would see a lot of progress towards improving the economics.

idontwantthis 4y ago

Did that require any additional knowledge or training in electricity or physics?

jakewins 4y ago
Some roles at my current gig for sure does, but most do not. Tons of space for people with general experience in a very broad set of software skills - machine learning, general “backend dev”, apps devs, embedded devs. There’s a lot of pairing people with general “here’s how you ship software” background and people with “here’s how the grid works” experience, doing skills transfer. Part of the effort here ends up being training a whole cadre of people on how the grid works. My email is in my profile if you want help trying to find gigs in US or EU in this space.
- idontwantthis 4y ago
  Thanks a lot! I won’t be looking for at least a year, but I will hit you up when I am.

WillPostForFood 4y ago

If the plan is to "electrify everything" and reduce emissions by 50% by 2030, how can you not even mention nuclear power once?

ggm 4y ago
Because the cost of construction AND timeline is not achievable before 2030 so the contribution of nuclear to the problem is post-2030. At best? you help to secure this form of power for 2040 and beyond. All nuclear under construction you are unable to shift its timeline. All nuclear in planning is subject to the regulatory delay of 10-15 years. The SMR push is not going to deliver power at scale by 2030, it will have at best a small handfull of megawatt units, when the demand is for terawatts. If you invest in smart grid assist to balance wind, solar, battery, pumped hydro and can mitigate coal and gas load NOW then, as a new entrant, you have the choice to do that, or to invest in the longer term problem. If you want to invest in longterm Nuclear is no worse or better than any other choice. If you can reduce the cost of capital or increase productive efficiency now of the non-nuclear low carbon energy and grid, over the 10 year window you may have more effect. There is nothing a new entrant engineer can do, to speed up nuclear. Its in regulatory and lawsuit hell. The engineer can help PV/Wind/Battery right now. It's a choice, and goes to net present value, shape of the curve moving load, linear optimisation of choices...
- epistasis 4y ago
  Sometimes I wonder if people actually care about the climate at all, or if nuclear is just a political wedge issue used to distract from real solutions right now.
  - ggm 4y ago
    I think even people of good intent get stuck on blame-shifting and hindsight. I opposed Torness (UK) in the 70s. I now would not protest an AGR, I think we need more nuclear not less. But, the time has passed where its economically viable in the necessary time window, for Australian power needs. LCOE, and time to construct has moved to wind, wave, solar and storage. Some people can't get over this, and are stuck on energy density and scale.
    - HPsquared 4y ago
      Nuclear power has a lot of room for improvement. The problems are related to cost and complexity of the specific designs, not fundamental to the physics of using nuclear reactions for energy. Much like early computers, the current designs are large and difficult to build. There is a lot of potential to scale down and reduce costs, like was done for computers. Molten salt reactors, for instance, offer a massive potential reduction in size and complexity (they eliminate a lot of the risks of water-cooled designs, so shouldn't need the same kind of massive containment structure to contain e.g. large volumes of highly radioactive steam in the event of a failure). If next-gen fission research got even 10% of the resources that are currently spent on fusion, I think we would see a lot of progress towards improving the economics.