5 ms·

The surprising key to a clean energy future

3 points by exz 4y ago

_hypx 4y ago
Bill Gates is simply wrong about this. Such a massive expansion of transmission lines will drastically increase our need for copper. https://www.kitco.com/commentaries/2023-01-24/Copper-shortage-getting-real.html https://www.kitco.com/commentaries/2023-01-24/Copper-shortag... Not to mention being incredibly expensive to expand the grid to such an extreme scale. It is unlikely to be a viable and cost effective solution. Future grids will have to be smaller, not bigger.
- LargoLasskhyfv 4y ago
  Dude, we will have supergrids made out of high-temperature superconductors made out of meta-materials, sucked out of the atmosphere and the seas by new-nuclear power plants. Yeah!
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    So do we just start the Krypton 85 and waste heat emissions trading scheme now, or do we wait until we cause 1.5 degrees of direct thermal forcing and lung cancer rates are back where they were in 1970?
    - LargoLasskhyfv 4y ago
      Krypton iz gud! Makez ZuprMän! Edit: Honestly I can't understand, why everytime when nukeplants are mentioned, someone crawls from out under his stone and starts to whine about the bad, bad, bad radioactivity. Meanwhile all the mining, refining, producing and transporting with every step between them, for all the shiny new solar, wind, wave and whichever regenerative and sustainable stuff is not able to power that. Not to mention the necessary battery storage. Come back again when you have all this solved globally in sankey diagrams, which don't externalize all the ugly shit on the fringes of the supply chain, making it other peoples problems elsewhere, not even delaying the disruptions caused by climate change, seen from a global POV. While coal plants work like enrichment facilities, just blowing the shit out with the winds, after burning shiploads or coal trains of that stuff day by day. Not to mention the other stuff like SO2, HG, NOx, CO2, ETC... At the end of the day, nuke plants emit the least amount of all that, as of now. While 'new-nukes' could be even more useful because delivery of process heat for other industrial purposes. District heating, powering carbon removal from the atmosphere, producing fertilizer and synfuels where needed, and so on. Everything else is patchwork, not meeting the global goals. Now dancing around to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRKAfzmFE8c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRKAfzmFE8c while applying my golden shower power...
      - Schroedingersat 4y ago
        > Edit: Honestly I can't understand, why everytime when nukeplants are mentioned, someone crawls from out under his stone and starts to whine about the bad, bad, bad radioactivity. Care to actually calculate what will happen if current reprocessing technology is expanded to cover more than about 5GW? Or are you in camp of running burner reactors on magic U235? This slimy whining about being held to account out of one side of your mouth whilst taking credit for the victories of 70 years of fighting against nuclear pollution out of the other is disingenuous and pathetic. > Meanwhile all the mining, refining, producing and transporting with every step between them, for all the shiny new solar, wind, wave and whichever regenerative and sustainable stuff is not able to power that. Not to mention the necessary battery storage. Which is smaller than the amount needed for a nuclear supply chain. > While coal plants work like enrichment facilities, just blowing the shit out with the winds, after burning shiploads or coal trains of that stuff day by day. Not to mention the other stuff like SO2, HG, NOx, CO2, ETC... So ban coal.

3 points by exz 4y ago

Bill Gates is simply wrong about this. Such a massive expansion of transmission lines will drastically increase our need for copper. https://www.kitco.com/commentaries/2023-01-24/Copper-shortage-getting-real.html https://www.kitco.com/commentaries/2023-01-24/Copper-shortag... Not to mention being incredibly expensive to expand the grid to such an extreme scale. It is unlikely to be a viable and cost effective solution. Future grids will have to be smaller, not bigger.

LargoLasskhyfv 4y ago
Dude, we will have supergrids made out of high-temperature superconductors made out of meta-materials, sucked out of the atmosphere and the seas by new-nuclear power plants. Yeah!
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  So do we just start the Krypton 85 and waste heat emissions trading scheme now, or do we wait until we cause 1.5 degrees of direct thermal forcing and lung cancer rates are back where they were in 1970?
  - LargoLasskhyfv 4y ago
    Krypton iz gud! Makez ZuprMän! Edit: Honestly I can't understand, why everytime when nukeplants are mentioned, someone crawls from out under his stone and starts to whine about the bad, bad, bad radioactivity. Meanwhile all the mining, refining, producing and transporting with every step between them, for all the shiny new solar, wind, wave and whichever regenerative and sustainable stuff is not able to power that. Not to mention the necessary battery storage. Come back again when you have all this solved globally in sankey diagrams, which don't externalize all the ugly shit on the fringes of the supply chain, making it other peoples problems elsewhere, not even delaying the disruptions caused by climate change, seen from a global POV. While coal plants work like enrichment facilities, just blowing the shit out with the winds, after burning shiploads or coal trains of that stuff day by day. Not to mention the other stuff like SO2, HG, NOx, CO2, ETC... At the end of the day, nuke plants emit the least amount of all that, as of now. While 'new-nukes' could be even more useful because delivery of process heat for other industrial purposes. District heating, powering carbon removal from the atmosphere, producing fertilizer and synfuels where needed, and so on. Everything else is patchwork, not meeting the global goals. Now dancing around to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRKAfzmFE8c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRKAfzmFE8c while applying my golden shower power...
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      > Edit: Honestly I can't understand, why everytime when nukeplants are mentioned, someone crawls from out under his stone and starts to whine about the bad, bad, bad radioactivity. Care to actually calculate what will happen if current reprocessing technology is expanded to cover more than about 5GW? Or are you in camp of running burner reactors on magic U235? This slimy whining about being held to account out of one side of your mouth whilst taking credit for the victories of 70 years of fighting against nuclear pollution out of the other is disingenuous and pathetic. > Meanwhile all the mining, refining, producing and transporting with every step between them, for all the shiny new solar, wind, wave and whichever regenerative and sustainable stuff is not able to power that. Not to mention the necessary battery storage. Which is smaller than the amount needed for a nuclear supply chain. > While coal plants work like enrichment facilities, just blowing the shit out with the winds, after burning shiploads or coal trains of that stuff day by day. Not to mention the other stuff like SO2, HG, NOx, CO2, ETC... So ban coal.