4 ms·

This is great to see. Enhanced geothermal is a grossly underrated technology. We're dumping billions into fusion energy research and wind and solar subsidies bu

This is great to see. Enhanced geothermal is a grossly underrated technology. We're dumping billions into fusion energy research and wind and solar subsidies but it seems like we're really close to having "geothermal anywhere" we just need a little more investment.

boringg 3y ago
(1) If fusion goes our energy problems are pretty much resolved. (2) Solar and wind are so cheap right now and will continue to get cheaper that we won't need oil and gas for electricity production except for specific use-cases. Combine that with decreasing energy storage costs and better grid management - its going well. (3) Nuclear is in a renaissance and can supply base load as we ramp it back up. Unfortunately geothermal, tidal and biofuels will be reserved to niche technologies. Too late, too inefficient or too expensive.
- lispisok 3y ago
  1. And if I win the lottery my financial needs are taken care of but I'm not planning on that 2. You are overestimating solar, wind, and energy storage and underestimating our energy needs, doubly so with transportation moving to electricity. Renewables still arent replacing fossil fuels despite all the hype. [1]. Moving off fossil fuels is going to require getting energy from whatever we can and having a constant consistent energy source is really important. People keep mentioning how cheap wind and solar is now but the true cost wont be realized until governments quit subsidizing them and start taxing [2]. [1] https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/ https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/ [2] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-doubles-renewable-subsidies-156-billion-last-seven-years-eia-2023-08-02/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-doubles-renewable...
  - boringg 3y ago
    Stop subsidizing them? We still heavily subsidize oil and gas and have since inception.
    - kaashif 3y ago
      The statement you are replying to is: > the true cost wont be realized until governments quit subsidizing them and start taxing This is true for a lot of things, including for oil and gas if subsidized.
- seiferteric 3y ago
  I think it depends on what our goals are. If we are just trying to replace current electricity capacity with renewables, the I think solar/wind/etc. + batteries are fine and can be done relatively quickly (though keep in mind new coal plants are still being built!). If our goal is to completely replace all fossil fuels, then I think it will take a lot longer (I think like 100 years) and requires serious investment in battery production such as described in Tesla Master Plan Part 3. However if the goal is all of the above, but also start removing CO2 from the air, I think only something like a fusion breakthrough will make it work. We will need to generate like and order of magnitude more energy to do this. Also we have to realize that while renewables are growing, so are fossil fuels! See https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-prod-source-stacked https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-prod-source-s... our total energy usage is increasing, so in order to replace all fossil fuels, you have to not only take up the new demand, you have to eat into the existing, almost like a double exponential! (not sure if the right term)
- nabakin 3y ago
  Regarding (1), it's not that simple. It depends on what form fusion takes. Fission was once thought to be the future of energy generation, unlimited clean energy for all, but now we realize the (justified) regulatory, maintenance, safety, and build costs are so incredible it is usually more economical to build gas/coal plants or solar/wind. If we achieve fusion production in the form of modern tokamaks with insane regulatory, maintenance, and build costs similar or worse than fission, we will be in the same situation so the real goal is to achieve fusion without all of those added costs. Only then could fusion realize the result we all dream of and that seems unlikely for many decades. The best hope we have atm is one of the fusion startups working on alternative methods of fusion has a breakthrough. Some have made claims of breakthroughs and also claim net energy gain in a few years, but as history has taught us, that's unlikely to occur. As much as I want and hope for the unlimited, clean fusion energy we all dream of, the realist in me recognizes the challenges we face and that we probably still have a long way to go. In which case, it's probably good to put money in other efforts like geothermal and not put all our eggs in one basket.

boringg 3y ago

(1) If fusion goes our energy problems are pretty much resolved. (2) Solar and wind are so cheap right now and will continue to get cheaper that we won't need oil and gas for electricity production except for specific use-cases. Combine that with decreasing energy storage costs and better grid management - its going well. (3) Nuclear is in a renaissance and can supply base load as we ramp it back up. Unfortunately geothermal, tidal and biofuels will be reserved to niche technologies. Too late, too inefficient or too expensive.

lispisok 3y ago
1. And if I win the lottery my financial needs are taken care of but I'm not planning on that 2. You are overestimating solar, wind, and energy storage and underestimating our energy needs, doubly so with transportation moving to electricity. Renewables still arent replacing fossil fuels despite all the hype. [1]. Moving off fossil fuels is going to require getting energy from whatever we can and having a constant consistent energy source is really important. People keep mentioning how cheap wind and solar is now but the true cost wont be realized until governments quit subsidizing them and start taxing [2]. [1] https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/ https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/ [2] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-doubles-renewable-subsidies-156-billion-last-seven-years-eia-2023-08-02/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-doubles-renewable...
- boringg 3y ago
  Stop subsidizing them? We still heavily subsidize oil and gas and have since inception.
  - kaashif 3y ago
    The statement you are replying to is: > the true cost wont be realized until governments quit subsidizing them and start taxing This is true for a lot of things, including for oil and gas if subsidized.
seiferteric 3y ago
I think it depends on what our goals are. If we are just trying to replace current electricity capacity with renewables, the I think solar/wind/etc. + batteries are fine and can be done relatively quickly (though keep in mind new coal plants are still being built!). If our goal is to completely replace all fossil fuels, then I think it will take a lot longer (I think like 100 years) and requires serious investment in battery production such as described in Tesla Master Plan Part 3. However if the goal is all of the above, but also start removing CO2 from the air, I think only something like a fusion breakthrough will make it work. We will need to generate like and order of magnitude more energy to do this. Also we have to realize that while renewables are growing, so are fossil fuels! See https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-prod-source-stacked https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-prod-source-s... our total energy usage is increasing, so in order to replace all fossil fuels, you have to not only take up the new demand, you have to eat into the existing, almost like a double exponential! (not sure if the right term)
nabakin 3y ago
Regarding (1), it's not that simple. It depends on what form fusion takes. Fission was once thought to be the future of energy generation, unlimited clean energy for all, but now we realize the (justified) regulatory, maintenance, safety, and build costs are so incredible it is usually more economical to build gas/coal plants or solar/wind. If we achieve fusion production in the form of modern tokamaks with insane regulatory, maintenance, and build costs similar or worse than fission, we will be in the same situation so the real goal is to achieve fusion without all of those added costs. Only then could fusion realize the result we all dream of and that seems unlikely for many decades. The best hope we have atm is one of the fusion startups working on alternative methods of fusion has a breakthrough. Some have made claims of breakthroughs and also claim net energy gain in a few years, but as history has taught us, that's unlikely to occur. As much as I want and hope for the unlimited, clean fusion energy we all dream of, the realist in me recognizes the challenges we face and that we probably still have a long way to go. In which case, it's probably good to put money in other efforts like geothermal and not put all our eggs in one basket.