Earlier quoted context omitted.
Totally offbeat angle, nothing to do with energy markets at large, but: My whole country is situated north of the 60th parallel north. Winters are friggin cold and I would be very concerned if there were no sources of energy not dependent on sunlight or wind. Also, I'm a neurotic so in case of a nuclear winter type of effect I would love to have some nuclear reactor technology going. For deep space exploration solar…
> Also, I'm a neurotic so in case of a nuclear winter type of effect I would love to have some nuclear reactor technology going. My guess is that, in case of nuclear winter, the complex societal structures that make operating nuclear energy possible will break down anyway.
Wind now competes with fossil fuels, and solar almost does
151–160 of 176 posts
Re: Wind now competes with fossil fuels, and solar almost does
#1521. This is excellent. It means we're well on our way to sustainable energy generation. Wind and solar are only going to get cheaper. Even without subsidies, there is no reason to ever build another coal or oil fired generation facility. Natural gas will stick around until utility scale batteries ramp up, to where peaking plants are too expensive compared to utility scale batteries. 2. Nuclear is dead. Very dead. Thor…
Have you ever looked into the negative environmental impacts of lithium mining and disposal? Elon's battery tech has serious negative environmental impacts yet the majority of people think its perfectly green because the media hasn't yet vilified this industry like they have fossil fuels.
I have. Lithium is mined from a brine on the surface, versus strip mining. Its neutral from an environmental impact perspective. Lithium batteries are almost fully recyclable except for the insulation (which is currently landfilled).
> Elon's battery tech has serious negative environmental impacts
Citation?
Re: Wind now competes with fossil fuels, and solar almost does
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Did I cover everything? Anything missing? There's interesting issues to consider with respect to scale + locality in generation/storage. My father-in-law's partner has a property in a rural area. Their property runs on 100% solar. The surrounding area has no local (large scale) power generation. During a recent storm the whole town was knocked off the grid. The property with solar kept working (after the storm, not…
It's pretty rare to invest in small scale, local fossil fuel power generation. I think you're ignoring the diesel or natural gas fueled generators that are now installed at most supermarkets, many office buildings, and even apartment buildings and private homes. They are everywhere these days; even 10 years ago you didn't see them as much.
Re: Wind now competes with fossil fuels, and solar almost does
#154Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have high hopes that practically free energy leads us to post scarcity.
A case could be made that we're already post-scarcity.
"The future is already here — it's just not very evenly distributed." -- William Gibson
Re: Wind now competes with fossil fuels, and solar almost does
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
If cars and all the oil infrastructure didn't exist, EV and batteries are superior. They have far better efficiency and are a much more elegant solution. But all the oil infrastructure does exist and is a huge advantage for oil producing solutions. Consider asking a random person, would you rather keep your current car and use oil that has a side benefit of being carbon neutral or throw away the car, buy a brand new…
>But the Prius combines both technologies and gets 40% thermal efficiency well, you can get an even better ICE with relatively simple improvements. In some sense there is just no business case for it as metal-air batteries would probably beat all the other options for passenger cars in near future. >Many think that hybrids and plug-in hybrids are a bridge technology to a pure EV future. But the future may end up bein…
You really can't. Note the VW emissions scandal. We've already hit the wall regarding how much energy we can squeeze out of a unit of liquid fuel (most of the energy gets wasted as heat).
Re: Wind now competes with fossil fuels, and solar almost does
#156Earlier quoted context omitted.
This kind of thing does leave renewables open to attack based on the "subsidy bad" line of thinking. The whole point of the incentives is to pay a fair price for a superior product that does not cause pollution and health damage. It is unreasonable to require a superior source of energy to actually be cheaper. In that sense nuclear/solar/wind are worth purseing even if they cost more than coal. The fact that renewabl…
Lost you. Large fossil fuel power stations are undeniably more efficient (cheaper) than the alternatives. Renewables are not competitive at all, yet.
Re: Wind now competes with fossil fuels, and solar almost does
#157Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Natural gas will stick around until utility scale batteries ramp up, to where peaking plants are too expensive compared to utility scale batteries. There's another possibility which is that there will be an overbuild of solar and wind caused by a clean energy boom (ZIRP already did this to oil; where is that ROI-hungry risk capital going to look for returns next?). The market will then figure out ways of putting the…
I have high hopes that practically free energy leads us to post scarcity.
Re: Wind now competes with fossil fuels, and solar almost does
#1581. This is excellent. It means we're well on our way to sustainable energy generation. Wind and solar are only going to get cheaper. Even without subsidies, there is no reason to ever build another coal or oil fired generation facility. Natural gas will stick around until utility scale batteries ramp up, to where peaking plants are too expensive compared to utility scale batteries. 2. Nuclear is dead. Very dead. Thor…
Nuclear energy isn't going to die and it's still much cheaper than wind/solar energy while being much more green as well.
Re: Wind now competes with fossil fuels, and solar almost does
#1591. This is excellent. It means we're well on our way to sustainable energy generation. Wind and solar are only going to get cheaper. Even without subsidies, there is no reason to ever build another coal or oil fired generation facility. Natural gas will stick around until utility scale batteries ramp up, to where peaking plants are too expensive compared to utility scale batteries. 2. Nuclear is dead. Very dead. Thor…
> Even without subsidies, there is no reason to ever build another coal or oil fired generation facility. You seem to be assuming that world demand for power can never rise. I find that... unlikely.
Re: Wind now competes with fossil fuels, and solar almost does
#1601. This is excellent. It means we're well on our way to sustainable energy generation. Wind and solar are only going to get cheaper. Even without subsidies, there is no reason to ever build another coal or oil fired generation facility. Natural gas will stick around until utility scale batteries ramp up, to where peaking plants are too expensive compared to utility scale batteries. 2. Nuclear is dead. Very dead. Thor…
Understanding costs with and without subsidies is critical. I believe the current reports about renewables being cost-effective relative to fossil fuels includes subsidies but I couldn't find the raw data after a few minutes of googling. If so, just means the costs are being shifted -- and that renewables are still more expensive than coal/gas. The big problem is that we still don't have effective ways to time-shift…
It's already being done in Hawaii:
http://www.utilitydive.com/news/hawaii-co-op-solarcity-ink-d...