3 ms·

Yes, efficiency is not an issue, but is improving. Storage technology evolve, there are many battery technology, even better than li-ion if fully developed, an

by effed3 3y ago

Yes, efficiency is not an issue, but is improving. Storage technology evolve, there are many battery technology, even better than li-ion if fully developed, and storage can be chemical, capturing co2 and making fuels with net zero CO2 pollution, can be thermal, can be even gravitational, hydrogen local storage, and energy can move in grids, to go where is need from where is available, engineering can do this now it there is a true will. If there is a system finely distributed (many systems) for production, transport and storage, in a mix on low to high tecnology, this will make global energy really available and independent of uncertains and variable conditions. Many examples of good offgrid appication exist, done by some guys, Imagine what can be done with true development/investment just tomorrow. And Uranium (like fossil fuels) is not everywhere, a shift of geopolitics will affect availability, sun and wind are everywhere, maybe not constant, but hardly vanish for long periods everywhere..

Detrytus 3y ago
You make a lot of assumptions here, about the directions in which future technologies can possibly develop. The thing is: if we are making decisions right now, we should make it based on what we know for sure, not based on our hopes and dreams, which might never materialize. In 20 years time, if the technologies you mention do indeed appear, we can re-evaluate our approach. > Uranium (like fossil fuels) is not everywhere, a shift of geopolitics will affect availability, sun and wind are everywhere, maybe not constant, but hardly vanish for long periods everywhere.. Sun disappears for half of the day, every day. Strong wind is not that common at all, except in few selected areas, like the seaside.
- effed3 3y ago
  Much of the technology i mention are here now, concrete and available, storage/battery for sure, driven dy automotive conversion to electric, synthetic fuels are way more close than 20years, all the fossil fuel infrastructure will benefit, and here are big$$, and will work with CO2 capture tech, i suspect we will need this very very soon. In the future are fusion (hope), ad real -safe- fission. if i have 1$ to invest, i think is wise to invest in tech available, deployable today, scalable, adaptable, and fine grained on territory. just an opinion. At night use storage and transfer energy with grids, this tech is available now. When windy, store in battery, and if needed transfert with grids, tech available now. No sun, no wind, no sea/tides, no grid, neiter a generator? well.. placing a fission plant here seems the right case, but suspect no one will live in a such place..
  - ETH_start 3y ago
    Transmission lines and storage are costly. When these costs are factored in, solar is possibly much more expensive than nuclear: "True cost of using wind and solar to meet demand was $272 and $472 per MWh" https://web.archive.org/web/20220916003958/https://files.americanexperiment.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/The-High-Cost-of-100-Percent-Carbon-Free-Electricity-by-2040-in-Minnesota.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20220916003958/https://files.ame... Current mass deployment of solar could prove to be very beneficial in the long run though, as 1. it leads to advances in the mass-manufucturing of solar panels which in turn produce reductions in per unit costs, and 2. it encourages research into energy storage, like methane production from CO2 and solar energy.
    - effed3 3y ago
      well, sure, nothing is free, but costs are (sometimes) investment, and this is more an issue of politics/economy planning than tech. And with the perspective of such a big development, investment everywhere, of planetary size, who will stay out of a businnes at this scale? i don't understand.. About Minesota, i will read the report, after a brief look i understant that in a state with 25%coal, 20%nuclear, 17%gas, talking of such big increase of green will cause panic to someone. About Grid, the infrastrucure is here, is necessary, and is independent from the pool of sources (green, fossil, etc..) so it's cost is not related to nature of sources, it's a long term investment to be mantained, so is unavoidable. The Storage is the open problem, here the investment are necessary and, as you say, in the long run. But to have a real long run, maybe some classic rules of the market need to be relaxed? to let the techs develop..
      - ETH_start 3y ago
        >>About Minesota, i will read the report, after a brief look i understant that in a state with 25%coal, 20%nuclear, 17%gas, talking of such big increase of green will cause panic to someone. The authors of the report advocate getting to zero carbon via nuclear and hydro. The advantage is they are both concentrated baseline power sources, so don't require extensive storage and transmission infra.

by effed3 3y ago

Detrytus 3y ago

You make a lot of assumptions here, about the directions in which future technologies can possibly develop. The thing is: if we are making decisions right now, we should make it based on what we know for sure, not based on our hopes and dreams, which might never materialize. In 20 years time, if the technologies you mention do indeed appear, we can re-evaluate our approach. > Uranium (like fossil fuels) is not everywhere, a shift of geopolitics will affect availability, sun and wind are everywhere, maybe not constant, but hardly vanish for long periods everywhere.. Sun disappears for half of the day, every day. Strong wind is not that common at all, except in few selected areas, like the seaside.

effed3 3y ago
Much of the technology i mention are here now, concrete and available, storage/battery for sure, driven dy automotive conversion to electric, synthetic fuels are way more close than 20years, all the fossil fuel infrastructure will benefit, and here are big$$, and will work with CO2 capture tech, i suspect we will need this very very soon. In the future are fusion (hope), ad real -safe- fission. if i have 1$ to invest, i think is wise to invest in tech available, deployable today, scalable, adaptable, and fine grained on territory. just an opinion. At night use storage and transfer energy with grids, this tech is available now. When windy, store in battery, and if needed transfert with grids, tech available now. No sun, no wind, no sea/tides, no grid, neiter a generator? well.. placing a fission plant here seems the right case, but suspect no one will live in a such place..
- ETH_start 3y ago
  Transmission lines and storage are costly. When these costs are factored in, solar is possibly much more expensive than nuclear: "True cost of using wind and solar to meet demand was $272 and $472 per MWh" https://web.archive.org/web/20220916003958/https://files.americanexperiment.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/The-High-Cost-of-100-Percent-Carbon-Free-Electricity-by-2040-in-Minnesota.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20220916003958/https://files.ame... Current mass deployment of solar could prove to be very beneficial in the long run though, as 1. it leads to advances in the mass-manufucturing of solar panels which in turn produce reductions in per unit costs, and 2. it encourages research into energy storage, like methane production from CO2 and solar energy.
  - effed3 3y ago
    well, sure, nothing is free, but costs are (sometimes) investment, and this is more an issue of politics/economy planning than tech. And with the perspective of such a big development, investment everywhere, of planetary size, who will stay out of a businnes at this scale? i don't understand.. About Minesota, i will read the report, after a brief look i understant that in a state with 25%coal, 20%nuclear, 17%gas, talking of such big increase of green will cause panic to someone. About Grid, the infrastrucure is here, is necessary, and is independent from the pool of sources (green, fossil, etc..) so it's cost is not related to nature of sources, it's a long term investment to be mantained, so is unavoidable. The Storage is the open problem, here the investment are necessary and, as you say, in the long run. But to have a real long run, maybe some classic rules of the market need to be relaxed? to let the techs develop..
    - ETH_start 3y ago
      >>About Minesota, i will read the report, after a brief look i understant that in a state with 25%coal, 20%nuclear, 17%gas, talking of such big increase of green will cause panic to someone. The authors of the report advocate getting to zero carbon via nuclear and hydro. The advantage is they are both concentrated baseline power sources, so don't require extensive storage and transmission infra.