When you look at just the clean energy sources in the US this percentage is greater obviously. Also, other countries rely more on Hydro than the US (Canada and China come to mind).
Has there been modeling done on what global warming will do to those Hydro power sources? For example, I can imagine drought is not good for reliable Hydro power. Has declining Hydro power been accounted for in possible future clean energy mixes?
I wish there was more analysis around energy storage (mainly because that's what my startup does). I think it's often overlooked in the press when talking about the future of solar. We're working to flatten the duck curve that solar created.
One of the big financial problems for CCS (carbon capture and storage) is that CO2 is essentially worthless. If a market would suddenly arise for concentrated CO2, I do not think we would have much of a problem to fill demand.
So, really, if one wanted to fix CCS, you would just need to find a good application for CO2, like with peanuts and peanut butter.
Given that Solar power is the fundamental source of energy leading to petroleum based energy (starting with photosynthesis), it's surprising that we still rely on petroleum to the degree we do today. In 100 years this would perhaps be something people would find shocking (like how we are shocked today at how mainstream slavery used to be 150 odd years ago). Solar Energy is unlimited, cheap and clean. My guess would b…
It's not as surprising as you'd think. The basic problem is energy density and availability . Human beings don't directly photosynthesize for clear reasons. Solar power isn't available constantly and is too diffuse to power us in real-time. Instead, we eat plants (or animals, which is just another layer of indirection) that have photosynthesized over time and stored up that energy - we then convert that energy so we…
> Human beings don't directly photosynthesize for clear reasons.
I've always wondered why humans did not evolve to photosynthesize, and am interested if they could be permitted to evolve to using CRISPR.
"Admits" seems a bit harsh, like he was doing his best to hide something from the world. By all accounts, it looks like he had written out a reasonable explanation as to why he predicted solar would not become cost effective. At the end of the day, if something doesn't make financial sense, it won't last long without subsidies from the government. The assumptions behind his predictions changed and therefore so did th…
In other words, he's being a scientist, and adjusting his conclusions to suit the available evidence. Which, to people not familiar with the scientific method, is shocking.
Yes, but only to a certain extent, I think. A truly honest, and most importantly, useful analysis wouldn't be limited to admitting that previous research did result in wrong predictions. I'd like to see a breakdown of what was wrong in the previous prediction, and to be sure that it's understood well, I would like to see also a true prediction based on modelling and not limited to .. observing what is happening with solar power right now. Am I too demanding of a scientist? Adjusting my predictions based on what I observe, he was wrong in 2008 and I have a low expectation that his new predictions will turn out correct.
It's not as surprising as you'd think. The basic problem is energy density and availability . Human beings don't directly photosynthesize for clear reasons. Solar power isn't available constantly and is too diffuse to power us in real-time. Instead, we eat plants (or animals, which is just another layer of indirection) that have photosynthesized over time and stored up that energy - we then convert that energy so we…
> Human beings don't directly photosynthesize for clear reasons. I've always wondered why humans did not evolve to photosynthesize, and am interested if they could be permitted to evolve to using CRISPR.
Photosynthesis is terribly inefficient, something like 5-6% of the light is actually used to make glucose out of CO2 because the process is quite complex and humans don't have a huge skin surface.
I always ask about synthetic fuels as an alternative to electric vehicles and have never gotten a good answer on it. We already have a huge liquid fuel distribution network built up. Why re-invent the wheel?
Cost. Synthetic fuels are very expensive. The ethanol industry sucks - it's just a fancy crop subsidy.
That's a biofuel, not a synthetic fuel. The difference being biological process versus a chemical synthesis process.
BTW, I accidentally downvoted you, did not mean to! Sorry for the loss of an internet point. It wasn't mean to discourage your comment.
I always ask about synthetic fuels as an alternative to electric vehicles and have never gotten a good answer on it. We already have a huge liquid fuel distribution network built up. Why re-invent the wheel?
Cost. Synthetic fuels are very expensive. The ethanol industry sucks - it's just a fancy crop subsidy.
> Human beings don't directly photosynthesize for clear reasons. I've always wondered why humans did not evolve to photosynthesize, and am interested if they could be permitted to evolve to using CRISPR.
Photosynthesis is terribly inefficient, something like 5-6% of the light is actually used to make glucose out of CO2 because the process is quite complex and humans don't have a huge skin surface. That's my opinion
Remember, it doesn't need to be terribly efficient. Just efficient enough. I agree that its probably 100-200 years off though (if it can be done at all).