20 ms·

Much of the technology i mention are here now, concrete and available, storage/battery for sure, driven dy automotive conversion to electric, synthetic fuels ar

by 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

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.