Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Energy

blog.samaltman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 287 posts

Re: Energy

#141

Post by jsprogrammer »

donttrustatoms wrote: post #132
jsprogrammer wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

Lithium ion makes no sense for storage. Something like large-scale flywheels would probably be much better. Using gravity for storage is even more sustainable. Flywheels for night use and stored water for long term use (storms, fog, prolonged winter at poles [would need to keep from freezing]) all powered by solar or other low-ongoing-input sources should provide a pretty nice environment.

Re: Energy

#142

Post by gumby »

jfoutz wrote: post #136
beat wrote: post #20

I suspect solar (including wind/biomass) + batteries is going to trounce fission reactors in the not terribly long term. If you think of finance in terms of latency/bandwidth (a model I use for lots of things), reactors are high latency - they're expensive and take a long time to set up. Meanwhile, solar/wind is heading toward dirt cheap and trivial to set up. Environmental impact is minimal, too. It doesn't require…

Rather than batteries, i think pumping water up a hill will be a lot cheaper. use the water to drive a generator. massive daily over production to fill the nightly (or much longer) reserve.

That is the state of the art for energy storage today and basically all the sites are taken. Sure, if energy costs go up a LOT a few more will become viable, but if you look around, for example, Californa, it's hard to find another viable site.

Re: Energy

#143

Post by ytdht »

beat wrote: post #20

I suspect solar (including wind/biomass) + batteries is going to trounce fission reactors in the not terribly long term. If you think of finance in terms of latency/bandwidth (a model I use for lots of things), reactors are high latency - they're expensive and take a long time to set up. Meanwhile, solar/wind is heading toward dirt cheap and trivial to set up. Environmental impact is minimal, too. It doesn't require…

where is nuclear in your theory?

Re: Energy

#144

Post by DennisP »

jsprogrammer wrote: post #125
mikeyouse wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 -- 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: htt…

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…

Yes but solar doesn't last as long as nuclear plants. The current nuclear generation, like the AP-1000, are certified for 60 years with an option to extend for another 60.

Solar has the advantage of trivial decommissioning, but a huge disadvantage in requiring things like storage, overproduction, long distance transmission, and smart grids, all of which raise its effective cost if you're not putting it on top of a fossil or nuclear-based power grid.

Re: Energy

#145

Post by SeoxyS »

rndmind wrote: post #96
beat wrote: post #20

I suspect solar (including wind/biomass) + batteries is going to trounce fission reactors in the not terribly long term. If you think of finance in terms of latency/bandwidth (a model I use for lots of things), reactors are high latency - they're expensive and take a long time to set up. Meanwhile, solar/wind is heading toward dirt cheap and trivial to set up. Environmental impact is minimal, too. It doesn't require…

Solar is indirectly fusion power.

So are fossil fuels, and pretty much everything else on earth, including life itself. Carbon-based fossil fuels are simply very old plants which have stored and concentrated solar energy.

The only non-solar non-fusion energy I can think of is that which comes from the earth's core, geothermic. And even that is believed to be powered by nuclear fission.

Re: Energy

#146

Post by throwaway24242 »

mikeash wrote: post #57
chinathrow wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not paranoia, it's a real issue with that waste. We have no working waste solution as of today. We have no working long term storage solution as of today. We have not priced the cost of long term storage/plant decomissioning etc at the full cost into the price of nuclear power - that is for most countries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/dealing-with-ass...

What's wrong with copying the solution used for all the other toxic waste modern industry produces? We have no working long term solution for storing arsenic, but people mostly seem fine with "just dispose of it in a way where it doesn't leech into the groundwater" and not the crazy restrictions everyone wants to put on nuclear waste storage.

Sry, that is a terrible argument. You are saying that we do not have to worry about nuclear waste, because we currently do not worry about other waste.

Re: Energy

#147

Post by TaylorAlexander »

someguy488fu348 wrote: post #134
beat wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Decentralization solves a lot of other problems as well - it's less vulnerable to accidental or intentional failure, it requires much less skill and expense to implement and operate, etc. Solar has the advantage that it cannot be weaponized even in nonsense theory, greatly relaxing export regulation. This makes it a viable solution for developing countries and remote areas, not just the handful of nations with the we…

Solar may have been weaponized as early as 214 BCE.

Photovoltaics can't really be weaponized, and we can't stop bad actors from getting access to large mirrors.

Re: Energy

#149

Post by jfoutz »

gumby wrote: post #142
jfoutz wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rather than batteries, i think pumping water up a hill will be a lot cheaper. use the water to drive a generator. massive daily over production to fill the nightly (or much longer) reserve.

That is the state of the art for energy storage today and basically all the sites are taken. Sure, if energy costs go up a LOT a few more will become viable, but if you look around, for example, Californa, it's hard to find another viable site.

I'd bet you know far more about it than i do. Assuming solar gets super super cheap, well, then we can do a lot. like suffer the losses of long distance transmission lines. Arizona supplying California might be feasible if the solar panels are cheap enough. Parent poster seems to be implying a few bucks a panel, rather than thousands or even hundreds of dollars.

Re: Energy

#150

Post by cwe »

donttrustatoms wrote: post #119
Eleutheria wrote: post #18

Distributed generation is where we should invest. Energy independence for the individual. Individual solar panels and batteries, personal windmills, personal reactors, etc. Imagine all the savings in infrastructure for energy transportation and reinvestment in other sectors. Imagine all the possibilities if people could switch their energy generation model as simple as buying a new product and installing it at home.…

So true. That's exactly why this is so exciting. With a UPower generator, small communities or neighborhoods could have always on, emission free power for a decade. and then, as you indicated, with enough clean power, individuals can create desalinated water or even extract water from air. They could cleanly power greenhouses even in the arctic. We could remove carbon from the air.

They could power all of those things on different planets.
Post reply on HN