14 ms·

Just because you say they are red herrings doesn't make it so. Eventually you will need to reconcile with the laws of physics.

epistasis 4y ago
Which law of physics are you talking about here? I sometimes see mention "laws of physics" as a reasons renewables won't work, but nobody has ever, literally ever, been able to point to the law. Or run the numbers on why renewables would be be feasible for supplying all our power and even an order of magnitude more than we currently consume.
- algoatecorn 4y ago
  https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262536165/energy-and-civilization/ https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262536165/energy-and-civilizati...
  - epistasis 4y ago
    That doesn't answer the question. Since you say "laws of physics" prevent renewables from supplying out energy. I call bullshit. Name the law.
    - algoatecorn 4y ago
      Oh it certainly does. Any honestly, if you have such strong opinions on energy production and haven't read Smil's work, then all of this back and forth makes a lot more sense.
      - epistasis 4y ago
        And yet you still can't articulate a single "law of physics" that's going to be violated. So, I maintain that this is 100% BS, just an argument to authority. If there is an argument in hat book, do you understand enough to give a sketch? Or point to the principle?
ben_w 4y ago
Land use, you're saying land use is not a red herring? Replace all energy and not just what is already electrified, and also boost global energy use to the per-capita rate of Qatar (I think the highest in the world at about 2.5 times the average of the USA), and also boost world population to 10 billion, you can still do this 30 times over with PV placed slightly worse than if it was randomly scattered. There's a lot of land on this planet of ours. That's why land use is a red herring.
Schroedingersat 4y ago
Solar produces 20W/m^2 net in mid winter at ~55 degrees north. LCOE at these latitudes is lower than nuclear and dropping. 99% of people live closer to the equator than this, and the majority of the remainder have enough hydro or wind/geothermal for a 100% renewable mix. In famously sunny washington state a current technology solar storage system with the same net capacity factor as US nuclear and the same number of days where >0 backup is needed as European nuclear for less than what Vogtle cost per watt. Add wind and this goes down dramatically. Allow the builder to sit on their thumbs for a decade before starting and they'd open before a new nuclear build while providing 100% capacity and a quarter of the cost using batteries made of abundant materials and solar panels made with the silver and copper that came out of existing uranium mines. The average american has 200-400m^2 dedicated to parking their car. Worldwide average per capita primary energy is 2kW. Even at 20W/m^2 this provides enough. Even wind at 5W/m^2 can produce enough final energy in that much area (with the side benefit of not really affecting other uses). Wind is much better than solar economically at high latitudes and is slightly anti-correlated with solar. There are terawatts of tidal sites available in high latitude coastal areas and the LCOE is already lower than nuclear with a much better learning rate and only a few hundred MW of preexisting capacity. What law of physics contradicts this?

epistasis 4y ago

Which law of physics are you talking about here? I sometimes see mention "laws of physics" as a reasons renewables won't work, but nobody has ever, literally ever, been able to point to the law. Or run the numbers on why renewables would be be feasible for supplying all our power and even an order of magnitude more than we currently consume.

algoatecorn 4y ago
https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262536165/energy-and-civilization/ https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262536165/energy-and-civilizati...
- epistasis 4y ago
  That doesn't answer the question. Since you say "laws of physics" prevent renewables from supplying out energy. I call bullshit. Name the law.
  - algoatecorn 4y ago
    Oh it certainly does. Any honestly, if you have such strong opinions on energy production and haven't read Smil's work, then all of this back and forth makes a lot more sense.
    - epistasis 4y ago
      And yet you still can't articulate a single "law of physics" that's going to be violated. So, I maintain that this is 100% BS, just an argument to authority. If there is an argument in hat book, do you understand enough to give a sketch? Or point to the principle?

ben_w 4y ago

Land use, you're saying land use is not a red herring? Replace all energy and not just what is already electrified, and also boost global energy use to the per-capita rate of Qatar (I think the highest in the world at about 2.5 times the average of the USA), and also boost world population to 10 billion, you can still do this 30 times over with PV placed slightly worse than if it was randomly scattered. There's a lot of land on this planet of ours. That's why land use is a red herring.

Schroedingersat 4y ago

Solar produces 20W/m^2 net in mid winter at ~55 degrees north. LCOE at these latitudes is lower than nuclear and dropping. 99% of people live closer to the equator than this, and the majority of the remainder have enough hydro or wind/geothermal for a 100% renewable mix. In famously sunny washington state a current technology solar storage system with the same net capacity factor as US nuclear and the same number of days where >0 backup is needed as European nuclear for less than what Vogtle cost per watt. Add wind and this goes down dramatically. Allow the builder to sit on their thumbs for a decade before starting and they'd open before a new nuclear build while providing 100% capacity and a quarter of the cost using batteries made of abundant materials and solar panels made with the silver and copper that came out of existing uranium mines. The average american has 200-400m^2 dedicated to parking their car. Worldwide average per capita primary energy is 2kW. Even at 20W/m^2 this provides enough. Even wind at 5W/m^2 can produce enough final energy in that much area (with the side benefit of not really affecting other uses). Wind is much better than solar economically at high latitudes and is slightly anti-correlated with solar. There are terawatts of tidal sites available in high latitude coastal areas and the LCOE is already lower than nuclear with a much better learning rate and only a few hundred MW of preexisting capacity. What law of physics contradicts this?