9 ms·

We already have fusion and it's super safe and cheap. We just need to install more panels to harvest the incoming radiation.

troupo 2y ago
Solar and wind are by their very inherent nature intermittent sources of power
- lomase 2y ago
  You can not stop a nuclear reactor to fit the grid needs.
  - troupo 2y ago
    You cannot power up solar panels at night, or wind turbines when there's no wind. As for nuclear, you don't need to stop them. Instead they provide a base load so you don't need to ridiculously overprovision other power sources. And they are flexible enough to go 50%-100% quickly: https://www.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2021-12/technical_and_economic_aspects_of_load_following_with_nuclear_power_plants.pdf https://www.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2021-12...
    - lomase 2y ago
      "You cannot power up solar panels at night, or wind turbines when there's no wind." Amazing insight.
- ben_w 2y ago
  Not inherent nature, just economics and politics. Wind always blows somewhere, the sun always shines somewhere. Making a global power grid is something which I don't expect anyone will do in the next 15 years, but if anyone does I'd be least surprised if it's China on a belt-and-road type project. Batteries are necessary for electric vehicles, and I do expect >50% of land motor vehicles in use worldwide to be electric within 15 years of today; that scale is sufficient to invalidate concerns about intermittent renewable generation in most (but not all) places even without a global grid.
  - lazide 2y ago
    And how far of a cable would you need to get 24/7 solar power? Because based on my math, it would have to cross a lot of timezones - including ones with a lot of people that would be happy to chop that cable if it meant screwing with the US.
    - ben_w 2y ago
      40,000 km will always be enough. A single cable is a bad idea for many reasons, but "it might get cut" isn't one of them, as at this scale it's the kind of thing that the whole world is using, so (0) nobody actually benefits from cutting it, (1) it's carrying order of a terrawatt at any given moment, so if you made it a single cable the magnetic field alone will mess with your cutting equipment, and (2) for reasonable resistance it's a cross section of about a square meter (1 Ω and ~1 year global aluminium production for that cross section at 40,000 km), so even a literal detonation of a Little Boy nuke 500 meters from it wouldn't make a dent.
      - lazide 2y ago
        A country like Russia will always benefit from cutting such a cable. Anything else, like the rest of this post, is pure fantasy.
        ben_w 2y ago
        If the cable (or one of them: again it's bad to make it just one, just physically spreading out that 1m^2 into a hundred cables of 10cm by 10cm makes it a lot less risky) goes through Russia, and they cut it, the effect is that immediately Russia stops trading energy. At best, this is a loss of income. At worst, it means their own lights go off because now they aren't getting anyone else's electricity in their own night and their own winter. What exactly do you think is fantastical? Using one year's production of one element? Because I'd already noted that the political aspects are severe enough that it's unlikely for anyone to build at this scale any time soon, and that only one country would be capable but even then it would be a surprise.

troupo 2y ago

Solar and wind are by their very inherent nature intermittent sources of power

lomase 2y ago
You can not stop a nuclear reactor to fit the grid needs.
- troupo 2y ago
  You cannot power up solar panels at night, or wind turbines when there's no wind. As for nuclear, you don't need to stop them. Instead they provide a base load so you don't need to ridiculously overprovision other power sources. And they are flexible enough to go 50%-100% quickly: https://www.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2021-12/technical_and_economic_aspects_of_load_following_with_nuclear_power_plants.pdf https://www.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2021-12...
  - lomase 2y ago
    "You cannot power up solar panels at night, or wind turbines when there's no wind." Amazing insight.
ben_w 2y ago
Not inherent nature, just economics and politics. Wind always blows somewhere, the sun always shines somewhere. Making a global power grid is something which I don't expect anyone will do in the next 15 years, but if anyone does I'd be least surprised if it's China on a belt-and-road type project. Batteries are necessary for electric vehicles, and I do expect >50% of land motor vehicles in use worldwide to be electric within 15 years of today; that scale is sufficient to invalidate concerns about intermittent renewable generation in most (but not all) places even without a global grid.
- lazide 2y ago
  And how far of a cable would you need to get 24/7 solar power? Because based on my math, it would have to cross a lot of timezones - including ones with a lot of people that would be happy to chop that cable if it meant screwing with the US.
  - ben_w 2y ago
    40,000 km will always be enough. A single cable is a bad idea for many reasons, but "it might get cut" isn't one of them, as at this scale it's the kind of thing that the whole world is using, so (0) nobody actually benefits from cutting it, (1) it's carrying order of a terrawatt at any given moment, so if you made it a single cable the magnetic field alone will mess with your cutting equipment, and (2) for reasonable resistance it's a cross section of about a square meter (1 Ω and ~1 year global aluminium production for that cross section at 40,000 km), so even a literal detonation of a Little Boy nuke 500 meters from it wouldn't make a dent.
    - lazide 2y ago
      A country like Russia will always benefit from cutting such a cable. Anything else, like the rest of this post, is pure fantasy.
      - ben_w 2y ago
        If the cable (or one of them: again it's bad to make it just one, just physically spreading out that 1m^2 into a hundred cables of 10cm by 10cm makes it a lot less risky) goes through Russia, and they cut it, the effect is that immediately Russia stops trading energy. At best, this is a loss of income. At worst, it means their own lights go off because now they aren't getting anyone else's electricity in their own night and their own winter. What exactly do you think is fantastical? Using one year's production of one element? Because I'd already noted that the political aspects are severe enough that it's unlikely for anyone to build at this scale any time soon, and that only one country would be capable but even then it would be a surprise.