4 ms·

Yes, research costs money at first in the hope of getting results later. Comparing it to buying something is only useful if you think what the research does can

by sgift 3y ago

Yes, research costs money at first in the hope of getting results later. Comparing it to buying something is only useful if you think what the research does can also be achieved by that. Since you ignore the question of whether Europe even has space for 100 or 200GW of solar power, that this power is only intermediately available (though there's hope that storage will be somewhat solved in 2050 using ... research!) and so on. We could get Fusion faster. That would cost more money. Governments are not willing to invest that, so we stay the course with the slow path. edit: Also, your 100b estimate is even higher than the - disputed - worst case assumptions of the DOE, which is somewhere between 45 to 65b. Also: http://www.iter.org/faq#Do_we_really_know_how_much_ITER_will_cost http://www.iter.org/faq#Do_we_really_know_how_much_ITER_will...

Kon5ole 3y ago
>Since you ignore the question of whether Europe even has space for 100 or 200GW of solar power That's a question that can safely be ignored though, Germany alone has installed rooftop solar on a small percentage of homes and is already at 70GW. Space is not a problem for solar, you can install it everywhere. It's so cheap now that it's viable even in sub-optimal locations. >though there's hope that storage will be somewhat solved in 2050 using ... research! It is solved already, all that remains to do is to build it. Germany has enough gas storage to last a year, and we know how to generate gas from electricity. It's being done in several places already. I think the major hold-up is political. Moving energy production from the current government-controlled central power plants to small-scale operations close to the consumer is too disruptive for lots of reasons. But I have hope that eventually we'll get there, it just takes time. That said, spending billions on things that won't solve any problems for the nest 50 years and using that as a reason to not actually do the thing that will work is inexcusable. At least do both.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  > It is solved already, all that remains to do is to build it. Germany has enough gas storage to last a year, and we know how to generate gas from electricity. It's being done in several places already. If storage is solved, then I think we would've heard about it. > That said, spending billions on things that won't solve any problems for the nest 50 years and using that as a reason to not actually do the thing that will work is inexcusable. At least do both. Who is using this as a reason to not do the other thing?
  - Kon5ole 3y ago
    >If storage is solved, then I think we would've heard about it. Here's one of many many ways how the storage problem has been solved: https://www.siemens-energy.com/global/en/home/products-services/product-offerings/hydrogen-solutions.html https://www.siemens-energy.com/global/en/home/products-servi... >Who is using this as a reason to not do the other thing? It's not stated directly of course but if you look at the money there is a discrepancy. The largest battery storage facility in Europe cost about 90 million euros, while the EU has granted over 5000 million to the ITER Tokamak project. So, clearly one thing is being done at a much larger scale than the other thing, deliberately or not.
- jorvi 3y ago
  > I think the major hold-up is political. No, the major hold-up is that saner heads prevail. I’m pretty green myself, but the vehement hatred most other green people display towards nuclear (whether it is fission or fusion) is mind-boggling. We will not have the grid storage to do baseload via renewable+batteries. There is not enough production capacity now, and production will not keep up with demand by a long shot. We need nuclear. Just fucking stop pushing us down a pit where we say in 25 years “well, shit, I guess we did need to start building nuclear 25 years ago. Fire up the coal plants!”.
  - Kon5ole 3y ago
    >vehement hatred most other green people display towards nuclear (whether it is fission or fusion) is mind-boggling. The hatred is understandable when you read stuff like this: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/dec/05/sellafield-nuclear-site-leak-could-pose-risk-to-public https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/dec/05/sellafield-... One example of many many many. It really seems like replacing one problem with another. That being said, my main problems with nuclear are 1) we solve the current acute problem much faster with solar+storage than with nuclear and 2) nuclear power drains much of same money that could be spent on solar+storage and 3) nuclear guarantees large expenses for future generations for the foreseeable future. >We will not have the grid storage to do baseload via renewable+batteries. Sure we will if we build it - there are no technical hurdles whatsoever to build all the storage we need, both batteries and gas are viable, and we also have pumped storage and other mechanisms. Moreover, since we have at least 10x the workforce with the required skillset to build storage than we have workers who can make nuclear plants, we can mobilize many more at once. Seriously - if you want to reduce emissions right now, you need to subsidize storage. Green hydrogen, pumped storage, batteries, everything. If we do this, not only will it start making a difference immediately, but 5 years from now we will have reduced emissions by the same amount as a bunch of nuclear power plants. Effects will be noticeable from year 1. Meanwhile not a single nuclear power plant will be built in 5 years.
    - jorvi 3y ago
      If the whole western world, China, Japan and Australia all want to switch to grid storage, we cant in a hundred years scale up production enough, especially because ’everything’ else in the world also needs batteries. Building enough grid storage is a pie in the sky. Don’t fall for it- enough people do and we are all screwed.

by sgift 3y ago

Kon5ole 3y ago

>Since you ignore the question of whether Europe even has space for 100 or 200GW of solar power That's a question that can safely be ignored though, Germany alone has installed rooftop solar on a small percentage of homes and is already at 70GW. Space is not a problem for solar, you can install it everywhere. It's so cheap now that it's viable even in sub-optimal locations. >though there's hope that storage will be somewhat solved in 2050 using ... research! It is solved already, all that remains to do is to build it. Germany has enough gas storage to last a year, and we know how to generate gas from electricity. It's being done in several places already. I think the major hold-up is political. Moving energy production from the current government-controlled central power plants to small-scale operations close to the consumer is too disruptive for lots of reasons. But I have hope that eventually we'll get there, it just takes time. That said, spending billions on things that won't solve any problems for the nest 50 years and using that as a reason to not actually do the thing that will work is inexcusable. At least do both.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
robertlagrant 3y ago
> It is solved already, all that remains to do is to build it. Germany has enough gas storage to last a year, and we know how to generate gas from electricity. It's being done in several places already. If storage is solved, then I think we would've heard about it. > That said, spending billions on things that won't solve any problems for the nest 50 years and using that as a reason to not actually do the thing that will work is inexcusable. At least do both. Who is using this as a reason to not do the other thing?
- Kon5ole 3y ago
  >If storage is solved, then I think we would've heard about it. Here's one of many many ways how the storage problem has been solved: https://www.siemens-energy.com/global/en/home/products-services/product-offerings/hydrogen-solutions.html https://www.siemens-energy.com/global/en/home/products-servi... >Who is using this as a reason to not do the other thing? It's not stated directly of course but if you look at the money there is a discrepancy. The largest battery storage facility in Europe cost about 90 million euros, while the EU has granted over 5000 million to the ITER Tokamak project. So, clearly one thing is being done at a much larger scale than the other thing, deliberately or not.
jorvi 3y ago
> I think the major hold-up is political. No, the major hold-up is that saner heads prevail. I’m pretty green myself, but the vehement hatred most other green people display towards nuclear (whether it is fission or fusion) is mind-boggling. We will not have the grid storage to do baseload via renewable+batteries. There is not enough production capacity now, and production will not keep up with demand by a long shot. We need nuclear. Just fucking stop pushing us down a pit where we say in 25 years “well, shit, I guess we did need to start building nuclear 25 years ago. Fire up the coal plants!”.
- Kon5ole 3y ago
  >vehement hatred most other green people display towards nuclear (whether it is fission or fusion) is mind-boggling. The hatred is understandable when you read stuff like this: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/dec/05/sellafield-nuclear-site-leak-could-pose-risk-to-public https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/dec/05/sellafield-... One example of many many many. It really seems like replacing one problem with another. That being said, my main problems with nuclear are 1) we solve the current acute problem much faster with solar+storage than with nuclear and 2) nuclear power drains much of same money that could be spent on solar+storage and 3) nuclear guarantees large expenses for future generations for the foreseeable future. >We will not have the grid storage to do baseload via renewable+batteries. Sure we will if we build it - there are no technical hurdles whatsoever to build all the storage we need, both batteries and gas are viable, and we also have pumped storage and other mechanisms. Moreover, since we have at least 10x the workforce with the required skillset to build storage than we have workers who can make nuclear plants, we can mobilize many more at once. Seriously - if you want to reduce emissions right now, you need to subsidize storage. Green hydrogen, pumped storage, batteries, everything. If we do this, not only will it start making a difference immediately, but 5 years from now we will have reduced emissions by the same amount as a bunch of nuclear power plants. Effects will be noticeable from year 1. Meanwhile not a single nuclear power plant will be built in 5 years.
  - jorvi 3y ago
    If the whole western world, China, Japan and Australia all want to switch to grid storage, we cant in a hundred years scale up production enough, especially because ’everything’ else in the world also needs batteries. Building enough grid storage is a pie in the sky. Don’t fall for it- enough people do and we are all screwed.