4 ms·

Hmm, major reversals of conflict-of-interest policy? (ie. now chairman of two YC companies and personally investing in them) Large claims with no hard data com

Hmm, major reversals of conflict-of-interest policy? (ie. now chairman of two YC companies and personally investing in them) Large claims with no hard data comparisons? (eg. atomic power has major cost, density, and predictability advantages) This(?): >There will only be one cheapest source of energy Really? There can't be two sources at or near equilibrium? These systems are not deployed in isolated, designer environments, but instead are deployed in complex environments. Transportation and project logistics will prefer some sources over others. The lack of any real metric for cost or "cheapness" is a red flag. Is cost being measured in nominal dollars? Will such a thing even exist in the 22nd century?

benaiah 11y ago
The hard data has been around for years, and is fairly easy to find. Not every blog post needs to have an accompanying statistical analysis.
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  So easy to find that it can't even be linked to on the web by two people that claim it exists?
  - mikeyouse 11y ago
    I still think there are huge issues with nuclear that need to be solved but nothing Sam said was controversial; Cost: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm -- on an LCOE basis, Advanced Nuclear is cheaper than everything but natural gas and that's entirely due to CapEx costs to build new plants -- which are what the modular nuclear companies that Sam's joining are working on fixing. Density: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Energy_densities_of_common_energy_storage_materials https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Energy_densitie... Predictability: Can be assessed by the capacity factor of plants that are running, the EIA publishes monthly data; http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=14611 http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=14611
    - jsprogrammer 11y ago
      So, comparing the report in your link for cost, Solar PV capital cost is a bit more expensive than "Advanced Nuclear" capital cost. However, the ongoing maintenance costs for solar PV are less than 50% of the ongoing maintenance costs for Advanced Nuclear. In fact, the additional (over Solar PV), annual maintenance costs for Advanced Nuclear are about 17% of the entire capital costs. After just a few years, Solar PV will be saving massive amounts of cost over Advanced Nuclear, just in maintenance. This seems to at least be partially taken into account in the "Total LCOE" numbers (sorry, but this report doesn't seem to have much as far as exactly how these numbers are calculated). Without subsidies, Solar PV is about 30% higher. However, when you look more closely at the actual ranges behind the averages that are the primarily cited data, you'll find that the Total LCOE estimate ranges for Advanced Nuclear and Solar PV actually overlap. The "minimum" Solar PV estimate is 97.8 and the Advanced Nuclear "maximum" is 101.0. The claim that atomic energy has major advantages over solar is not borne out in this EIA report. In fact, the report seems to show that solar is highly competitive with almost every generation source and actually has a huge advantage in ongoing maintenance costs, being practically at the bottom. I haven't investigated the other links yet, since the first one didn't seem to pan out.
      - donttrustatoms 11y ago
        That makes sense given those numbers tabulated, but the real question is cost of solar plus backup or storage. One means nothing without the other in terms of both cost and carbon. Above I illustrated my calculations on just one hour of battery backup for US grid with lithium ion- would require 10x annual global production of lithium. Generally cost of battery backup looks like 35c/kWh and has limitations on duration so it must come back to fossils. Solar makes a lot of sense if backup/storage/smoothing weren't needed since pv has gone down in cost. It still makes a lot of sense in many off grid applications, and for instance in my home we have solar concentrator lights and I would love to have solar water pre-heaters in the summer. But for on grid the capital requirements are much more complicated than generally illustrated, and ultimately the environmental impacts are greater than apparent at first glance.
        11y ago

benaiah 11y ago

The hard data has been around for years, and is fairly easy to find. Not every blog post needs to have an accompanying statistical analysis.

jsprogrammer 11y ago
So easy to find that it can't even be linked to on the web by two people that claim it exists?
- mikeyouse 11y ago
  I still think there are huge issues with nuclear that need to be solved but nothing Sam said was controversial; Cost: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm -- on an LCOE basis, Advanced Nuclear is cheaper than everything but natural gas and that's entirely due to CapEx costs to build new plants -- which are what the modular nuclear companies that Sam's joining are working on fixing. Density: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Energy_densities_of_common_energy_storage_materials https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Energy_densitie... Predictability: Can be assessed by the capacity factor of plants that are running, the EIA publishes monthly data; http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=14611 http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=14611
  - jsprogrammer 11y ago
    So, comparing the report in your link for cost, Solar PV capital cost is a bit more expensive than "Advanced Nuclear" capital cost. However, the ongoing maintenance costs for solar PV are less than 50% of the ongoing maintenance costs for Advanced Nuclear. In fact, the additional (over Solar PV), annual maintenance costs for Advanced Nuclear are about 17% of the entire capital costs. After just a few years, Solar PV will be saving massive amounts of cost over Advanced Nuclear, just in maintenance. This seems to at least be partially taken into account in the "Total LCOE" numbers (sorry, but this report doesn't seem to have much as far as exactly how these numbers are calculated). Without subsidies, Solar PV is about 30% higher. However, when you look more closely at the actual ranges behind the averages that are the primarily cited data, you'll find that the Total LCOE estimate ranges for Advanced Nuclear and Solar PV actually overlap. The "minimum" Solar PV estimate is 97.8 and the Advanced Nuclear "maximum" is 101.0. The claim that atomic energy has major advantages over solar is not borne out in this EIA report. In fact, the report seems to show that solar is highly competitive with almost every generation source and actually has a huge advantage in ongoing maintenance costs, being practically at the bottom. I haven't investigated the other links yet, since the first one didn't seem to pan out.
    - donttrustatoms 11y ago
      That makes sense given those numbers tabulated, but the real question is cost of solar plus backup or storage. One means nothing without the other in terms of both cost and carbon. Above I illustrated my calculations on just one hour of battery backup for US grid with lithium ion- would require 10x annual global production of lithium. Generally cost of battery backup looks like 35c/kWh and has limitations on duration so it must come back to fossils. Solar makes a lot of sense if backup/storage/smoothing weren't needed since pv has gone down in cost. It still makes a lot of sense in many off grid applications, and for instance in my home we have solar concentrator lights and I would love to have solar water pre-heaters in the summer. But for on grid the capital requirements are much more complicated than generally illustrated, and ultimately the environmental impacts are greater than apparent at first glance.
      - 11y ago