6 ms·
This kind of cynicism just encourages inaction. First, it frames the problem as only that of the powerful. But largely, opinion polls are against the kind of a
by graeme 2y ago
This kind of cynicism just encourages inaction. First, it frames the problem as only that of the powerful.
But largely, opinion polls are against the kind of action that would be useful. Nuclear, for example, is the only baseload tech we currently have at scale that doesn't burn carbon. It is widely opposed and public pressure has led to regulations blocking it or even expanding it.
Second, a lot of ultra wealthy ARE funding research. Bill Gates contributed substantially (though pulled back recently).
Stripe notably has made Stripe Climate, which lets businesses contribute shares of revenue to carbon sequestration tech, which is absolutely vital to removing CO2 from the air if we somehow got to net zero. They promoted it heavily and made great UI to allow businesses to list it as a marketing expense.
The real block is us. Public opinion is very powerful. Now, specific companies have worked mightily to convince the public not to act, particularly from the oil sector.
But the convenient message of gloom posting is not to do anything not to believe in doing anything and fob it off to the rich.
(I use Stripe Climate, it's great)
- pfdietz 2y ago> Nuclear, for example, is the only baseload tech we currently have at scale that doesn't burn carbon. Renewables + storage is also, when combined, a baseload tech. If you are implying nuclear fills a niche on the grid that cannot be filled by renewables + storage, you're mistaken.
- nine_k 2y agoA lot of Europe lies in northern areas where solar is simply insufficient, especially in winter. Solar / wind + huge batteries + huge transmission lines would compare: capture sunlight in places like Bulgaria or Greece, feed places like Norway or Britain. But this is way more disruptive, and likely expensive, than a nuclear power plant.
- Epa095 2y agoOp said renewables, not solar. Both Norway and Sweeden have significant (renewable) hydro, which pairs well with the cyclical nature of both wind and solar.
- cycomanic 2y agoThat's just not true. But more importantly investing in nuclear now. As long as we don't even have sufficient renewables to constantly power us during the day, good weather... it has a much higher CO2 reduction impact to invest in renewables than building nuclear power plants.
- nine_k 2y agoWhat's not true? That Sweden or UK receive less solar radiation than Greece, especially in December? That building a huge transmission line from there (or, better yet, from Sahara) would be a very hard and expensive undertaking? That having enough batteries to sustain, say, 2 days of baseload supply, when it's cloudy and not windy, is hugely expensive, and has never been tried because of that? Well, nuclear is also expensive, but it's partly regulation, partly nuclear being bespoke in many cases, while solar panels currently enjoy enormous economy of scale. I all for nuclear, for the record.
- gocartStatue 2y agoThey receive less solar radiation, but still some. They both have great conditions for offshore wind. Also all for nuclear, but decentralized renewables are great.
- t43562 2y agoNuclear is a total disaster recently. Enormous cost overruns, delayed operation. What reason in hell is there to pour money into that instead of wind? Wind works. Every turbine built adds power - no need to wait decades for the next screwed up nuclear install. I'm a fan of the SMR idea although it turns out that it's less economic than people thought at the smaller sizes anyhow. I'm also very interested in the fusion startups............BUT we have to solve the climate problem now -- yesterday if it were possible.
- nine_k 2y agoWe have no problem generating power with wind or solar. We have a problem of doing it in a dependable manner. If there's something to pour money into, it's battery storage, both building much more of it, and developing cheaper variants of it. We need the cost of LiFePO4 batteries to fall as dramatically as the cost of solar panels did. Then renewables will make much bigger inroads into the grid in a lot of places.
- pfdietz 2y agoBatteries are not the only storage technology, nor is it the case that only one storage technology would be used, as different ones are best for different storage timespans. Diurnal would be batteries, but seasonal storage would likely be something different (like e-fuels). Whether it is "disruptive" doesn't matter. What matters is cost. Renewables + storage look to be much cheaper than nuclear in the best places and at least competitive in the worst. There was an insightful post a little while ago about people liking nuclear because of a bias toward simple solutions. It reminded me of the adage "for any problem, there's a solution that's simple, straightforward... and wrong." The economy is quite willing to optimize for more complex solutions if this ends up saving money. "Keep it simple, stupid (KISS)" doesn't apply at the level of the whole economy. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43426010 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43426010
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- milesrout 2y agoThere is no such thing as storage. Current storage is tiny. Batteries are insanely expensive.
- willvarfar 2y agoThe water behind a dam is storage too, right? There are lots of examples of pumping water up into reservoirs when electricity is plentiful so it can be released when electricity is scarce, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricit...
- chgs 2y agoFor less than 10% of the cost of land for my house I can run it for a week off battery.
- pfdietz 2y agoAh, the principle of "nothing can ever happen for the first time". I have to love this sentiment, especially on HN. Because prices don't decline dramatically over time for any technology, right? Or if they do, then the safest thing to do is assume the future will see no continuing of trends of reductions, right? /s
- myrmidon 2y agoYou can order 1kW of panels with 1kWh of batteries as a plug-and-play system off of Amazon for about $1k. Thats gonna generate >1MWh of electricity per year easily (probably closer to 2MW even), and with spot pricing for electricity at ~$100/MWh (Europe), this pays off within a decade easily. Provide numbers if you disagree.
- toomuchtodo 2y agoThis is factually inaccurate. Solar and batteries are the cheapest form of generation currently. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43414219 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43414219 (citations) Lithium-Ion Battery Pack Prices See Largest Drop Since 2017, Falling to $115 per Kilowatt-Hour: BloombergNEF - https://about.bnef.com/blog/lithium-ion-battery-pack-prices-see-largest-drop-since-2017-falling-to-115-per-kilowatt-hour-bloombergnef/ https://about.bnef.com/blog/lithium-ion-battery-pack-prices-... - December 10, 2024 Lazard Levelized Cost of Energy+ - https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/levelized-cost-of-energyplus/ https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/levelized-cost-of-e...
- bigthymer 2y ago> But largely, opinion polls are against the kind of action that would be useful. Nuclear, for example, is the only baseload tech we currently have at scale that doesn't burn carbon. It is widely opposed and public pressure has led to regulations blocking it or even expanding it. The only country that seems to be having an honest conversation about how to adapt to climate change is France. They've been having society-wide conversations about it over the last few years and support for nuclear has gone up substantially.
- jamesblonde 2y agoIt's the Germans who are showing leadership in Europe. The French and Swedish have most nuclear, but not because of green policies. Just historical. Germany have had the "Energiewende", which everybody in the world should marvel at - but not enough know about. It's shat on, and public opinion even in Europe has been shaped against it. But it really is an 'energy turnaround'. It is leadership by taking unilateral action in the face of our common enemy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energiewende https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energiewende
- lentil_soup 2y agoDon't know much about that policy but I frequently monitor electricity usage via https://app.electricitymaps.com https://app.electricitymaps.com and Germany has usually the highest carbon intensity electricity in western Europe. Getting rid of nuclear seems to have made things worse.
- garte 2y agoThat's why it's called an 'energy turnaround' not an energy 180.
- TheSpiceIsLife 2y agoThat's awesome thanks. Would be great if it also show'd what the average residential customer was paying as well as the average industrial users cost per kWh so we could get an idea of the cost of manufacturing as far as electricity input goes.
- aaomidi 2y agoYes. Opinions are significantly influenced by the marketing powers of the rich. Now you’re cooking with gas.