Comment by nextparadigms | Hacker News Reader

Comment by nextparadigms | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

This is why I welcomed the backlash and even some of the sensationalism regarding the nuclear explosion in Japan. Even if I realize that nuclear energy could be safe and it's good to have an alternative that is cheap enough to compete with coal, I'd still wish we'd spend all those billions switching from nuclear and putting most of them into renewable energy technologies, which should be the future.

The arguments against solar were that the tech is "not there yet", so then it's better to just focus on nuclear. I disagree with that. I believe that if the energy industry changed focus to solar panels and other renewable energy technologies, we would get there a lot faster. We would have a lot more companies exploring different ideas that make them more efficient and cheaper.

Nuclear technology will probably never be gone, or at least not within the next century. But I just don't want it to be the holy grail of the energy industry and see the vast majority of investments go into that. I want renewable energy technologies to be that.

The idea that solar, wind and geothermal energy can replace nuclear power for electricity generation in my lifetime (the next 35 years) ignores the reality of how much electricity we consume and how it is currently generated.

Here's a link to a graph created by the Lawrence Livermore Lab that quickly illustrates the miniscule impact of doubling, tripling, or even quadrupling the three primary alternative energy sources.

I wish we could all live in a world powered by solar cells etc, but it just isn't going to happen.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't think you provided a link.

But renewable energies could replace nuclear (and other sources) for new plants that will be built in the future. Nuclear has a very high initial cost, and shutting down current plants while they're still efficient and safe enough wouldn't be a sound choice, but for replacements of ageing plants and for new constructions cheaper and cheaper renewable energies could realistically displace them in the next decades.

No. It can't.

And pretending it can is a problem.

Solar is nice. It'd be FAN-GODDAMN-TASTIC if we could use solar power as the backbone of our power generation. But we can't, it's just not feasible.

Solar today is half of a power plant. Much like wind Solar generates power when its convenient to its own schedule, not ours, and sometimes that means it generates zero power.

This. Is. A. Problem.

It is, in fact, the problem of solar and wind power. Today we can use solar and wind serendipitously. They run on top of base power and when they provide power they allow us to keep gas powered generators offline. That's nice, but it's an edge solution, and we're already nearing the limits of that strategy. In order to replace base load power we need something that provides power reliably when it's convenient for humans. For solar or wind that means we need to invest in vast power storage plants. Things that do not currently exist even in designs. Things that are likely to be about as expensive to build and maintain as solar plants themselves will be.

We do not have the technology to move to solar or wind power as a base load power source. And it seems likely that if we did have that technology it would put the full cost of those power sources at higher than even fission power plants.

We can no more move to solar or wind power for the majority of our power needs than we could move to Thorium reactors, or fusion power.

Today we can use solar and wind serendipitously. They run on top of base power and when they provide power they allow us to keep gas powered generators offline.

Solar thermal+thermal storage could be used in climates closer to the equator. The US ran an experimental setup with 8 hours endurance after sundown.

In the case of cooling equipment, solar coincides well with demand.

You are most certainly right that solar won't cover all our baseload power needs. We don't need to cover it all. We just need to whittle down the unsustainable and environmentally unfriendly parts as much as we can.

Subsidizing winners isn't something the government should be in the business of doing. However, penalizing losers is precisely what we have a government for, and CO2 emitting power is a losing proposition for the future.

According to Wikipedia, the largest solar facility generates 354MW of electricity (assuming ideal conditions). In contrast, the recently approved AP1000s at the Plant Vogtle Georgia site each generate 1100 megawatts, rain or shine.

So if the best solar facility, using 1600 acres of land can only provide 1/3 of one new reactor, your math just won't work.

Exactly.

I'm repeating myself in this tread, but seriously, I recommend to everyone taking a look at http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/ - it has all the numbers, including e.g. power densities of solar and wind plants in watts per square meter.

According to that book, there's no way solar or wind could compete directly with nuclear. It just doesn't add up.

There is no way to have any serious discussion about energy without doing at least some rudimentary calculations and comparing numbers, instead of adjectives and hopes.

Only we're doubling production of wind turbines every 2-3 years. With each doubling, prices come down, as they do with every other manufactured artifact from computers to TVs to washing machines.

Look out for 35 years. Is it still minuscule?

In some respects wind is like hydro, in that there are a limited number of good places to site a wind farm. As the number of turbines grows there will be diminishing returns as the new sites are less good because they have less wind, longer distances to existing power infrastructure, more damaging weather incidents, etc.

We're nowhere near that limit. From Wikipedia:

According to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the contiguous United States has the potential for 10,459 GW of onshore wind power. The capacity could generate 37 petawatt-hours (PW·h) annually, an amount nine times larger than current total U.S. electricity consumption. The U.S. also has large wind resources in Alaska, and Hawaii. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_States

Since we're engaging in fantasy (for now) what would happen if we DID extract that much energy (or even a significant fraction of that) from the atmosphere? What kind of climate change would that precipitate?

None. The amount of energy extractable by wind turbines is only a tiny fraction of the total, close to the surface.

Considering how unpopular wind energy is in some areas due to either killing a large number of raptors, or "despoiling" the view from Martha's Vineyard, I doubt the production will continue to double indefinitely.

Turbines kill fewer birds than coal plant smokestacks. Newer, bigger ones move more slowly, killing fewer birds as well as being quieter. They also produce more power per area.

As for the view... well, you can't please everyone.

Actually that's incorrect, at least for centralized wind farms:

http://www.indiana.edu/~spea/pubs/undergrad-honors/volume-4/...

The key takeaway from that thesis is:

"As determined in the risk characterization, a centralized wind farm does have a greater impact on avian mortality than the coal fired- power plant. "

Correct link: http://www.indiana.edu/~spea/pubs/undergrad-honors/volume-4/...

The thesis examines only Fowler Ridge, which mostly has 1.65MW Vestas v82 with a 41m blade length and hub height of 70m. The latest I could easily get specs for is a 3MW Vestas: 56m blade length, 84m hub. Higher, more efficient, and most importantly: slower which kills fewer birds.

Last year they introduced a the V164 at 7.0MW: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestas

Gah, sorry about that:

http://static.keithhennessey.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/...

I think you forgot the link: https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/content/energy/energy_archive/en...

There is some other good stuff at that site.

Stop thinking linearly. Both the amount of solar energy per dollar, and the total global amount of power generated by solar panels is increasing at an exponential rate.

> if the energy industry changed focus to solar panels and other renewable energy technologies, we would get there a lot faster

This is probably true. But as always, the problem is money. More specifically, the money that entrenched interests possess (and throw around).

I'd love for solar energy to happen as soon as possible too. It shows great promise. But it might not happen for a while.

> Nuclear technology will probably never be gone, or at least not within the next century.

100 years is a mighty long time. Who knows, nuclear reactors might be completely replaced by renewable energy sources within the next fifty years. Let's hope for the best.

currently the vast majority of power comes from fossile sources (coal, gas, petrol). just imagine what amounts of gasoline are used every day for transportation. there's no way in the near future, that we're gonna replace this amount of energy with solar energy. no way. we either switch to a nuclear powered, hydrogen based economy (once we run out of gasoline) or we say goodbye to mobility. and by the way, this isnt a really a question of price. solar energy is highly dependent on current daylight, we would have to rethink our entire energy distribution, building either much cheaper batteries, to provide a constant level of energy on the grid or create some sort of highly efficient global energy grid. those problems are far from solved. at least not at an affordable rate.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com