Sustainable Energy without the Hot Air (Revised, Community Edition)

> Saying there is no realistic path to net zero without a reduction in consumption is somewhat funny to me. I don't think it is realistic at all to think that people will accept a reduction in living standards, which is what a reduction in consumption would result in.

I think you’re right. But I think Physics is going to show us the bill at some point and we won’t have a choice. When blackouts will be the norm, people will probably be very angry, but there won’t be much to do.

It is interesting to think about the perspective of e.g. a farmer during the fall of the western Roman Empire. I am certain that none of them wanted it, and it was actually quite violent at times, but there wasn’t anything they could do to stop it.

> Has anyone, anywhere ever had political success saying that everyone's living standards must decrease?

None (that I know of). It is already happening, though. Energy production in Europe is plateauing. Standards of living are already stagnating. Just like politicians cannot will away systemic technical problems in the economy or industry, they cannot change the laws of physics.

Our best bet is to use everything we can. Nuclear base production, as much wind and solar as we can, batteries and hydro to smooth out the peaks. We need to go all out. Even then, it would probably take a global industrial effort of the magnitude of the war efforts during WWI and WWII, just to get everything up and running. Let’s not kid ourselves: the world is burning, a mass extinction is under way, and there is already no way we meet our own bar of 1.5°C, and even 2°C requires immediate action.

In what way is it not a competition?

We live in a world of finite resources. When considering the significant task of decarbonizing energy, there are lots of technologies potentially available. But some deliver more value than others.

Unfortunately nuclear is not _currently_ one of the options which delivers value in this regard.

Flamenville 3 - the newest French reactor will cost $22B to build 1.6GW of capacity and will have taken nearly 20 years from the start of construction to deliver a watt. The same amount of money could deliver over 20GW of wind capacity which could be deployed almost instantly as it's an easily parallelizable low-risk, relatively low-tech engineering task relying on mass-production for most of the installation. None of these benefits are available to nuclear reactor construction. Even with a capacity factor of 40% for on-shore wind vs 90%+ for nuclear, nuclear just isn't close.

I'm not against nuclear. If the nuclear industry can step up and deliver reactors on time and on budget which can provide power at competitive prices, then I'd be all in favour. It would be wonderful to have an alternative in the race to decarbonize energy. But all I see is a long trail of massively delayed or abandoned projects with incredible cost-overruns (Flamanville, Olkiluoto, V.C. Summer, Vogtle, etc). These failures are hard-engineering failures, nothing to do with politics.

With such a litany of recent failures, the incredible capital expense, the extra security required, the slowness of delivery, it's clear why resources have been directed away from nuclear toward other technologies which are quick and easy to roll-out and have already significantly contributed to reducing the the CO2 intensity of Europe's electricity (which is now less than half of what it was 30 years ago).

Btw, it isn't just nuclear that loses in this regard; bio-fuels, domestic-solar PV, green hydrogen, etc. all fail to compete in the new world of ultra-cheap solar PV and wind.

The reasons further down explain why utilities are very slow to react and why even after a better choice is available.

But even with your further comparison, you are falling prey to the same bad logic: solar can't be cheaper because we aren't already using it. You are looking at the decisions from 2010 to 2015 to evaluate the situation from 2021.

For changing technology, that's a really bad assumption. If nearly all the market for CPUs is Intel, then AMD comes out with a far better deal than Intel, do you evaluate how much better AMD is by the installed base across all computer? Of course not.

Check out what is being planned for the future. Some of the decisions are not great, because utilities don't yet know that storage is super cheap. But you'll find that in price responsive markets, nearly all new planned generation is wind, solar, and storage. Along with a few new gas plants proposed by people hedging against the dominant tech, or just through inertia.

> 50km/day/car

For what it's worth "In 2019, the average car in the UK drove 7,400 miles"[0] which works out to 33 km/day/car. It's probably much less now due to working from home (and fuel shortages, and the collapse of the supply chain...)

[0] https://www.nimblefins.co.uk/cheap-car-insurance/average-car...

Antimatter might conceivably be viable as a form of energy storage. But as with hydrogen or other synfuels, it would never be a primary energy source, and the losses in production of antimatter are likely to remain large.

Ultimately, antimatter is a battery or fuel, not an energy source. And if it ever were a viable energy source ... well, we'd likely have bigger problems.