this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2024
489 points (99.2% liked)
Technology
59441 readers
4049 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Solar has been growing exponentially for the past decade or so, wind has not. Wind has run into supply chain limitations on rare earth metals such as neodymium and isn’t growing exponentially anymore.
It’s doubtful that solar will continue growing exponentially for the next 20 years but even if it does, that only gets us to the point of enough capacity to displace the ~17.9 PWh of electricity generated by fossil fuels in 2023.
To get off of fossil fuels we need to change everything else that’s burning fossil fuels too. That means every vehicle replaced with an EV, every gas furnace replaced with a heat pump. As we do that it’s going to 2-3x electricity demand.
The world burned 140 PWh worth of fossil fuels in 2023, and we only generated 1.6 PWh from solar power. That 1.6 is up from 1.3 PWh in 2022. A lot of that 140 PWh was wasted heat energy so we don’t need to get that high, but we still need to generate something in the area of 60-90 PWh of electricity annually to eliminate fossil fuels.
~4/5th of our energy still comes from fossil fuel, we have a long f’ing way to go. Even with the current exponential growth of solar we don’t get off of fossil fuels within 20 years, and that’s assuming global energy demand doesn’t increase.
Don’t take my word for it. Extrapolate the data yourself. Your rose coloured glasses aren’t helping.
That's why we also need to reduce our use of pretty much everything. We can never reach zero fossil fuel used, unless we start by reducing the amount of stuff we buy/use, starting with things that currently use fossil fuels: cars, shipping, flights, plastics and so on.
Then we could use renewable energies only or nuclear only or a mix of both to power what is truly necessary for our lives.
Except that this has actually been studied, and a future with Wind/Water/Solar (WWS) is completely viable without a single new megawatt of nuclear.
https://www.amazon.com/No-Miracles-Needed-Technology-Climate/dp/1009249541
It’s not a question of viability it a question of time.
Can we replace all fossil fuels with wind and solar power only? Absolutely.
Can we do it by 2050? Not without a miracle.
Yes, we can. Again, this is all part of these studies. It is easily the most economical viable and fastest plan.
You seem to be misunderstanding friend.
I’m all for building as much wind, hydro, and solar power as possible. It is the cheapest option.
I’m not arguing against that.
People here seem to think that money spent on nuclear is money NOT spent on Wind/Solar/Hydro/Storage/etc as if there’s a fixed budget for all energy transition projects. That’s not the situation.
Insurance and financial institutions are losing big money on climate change disasters, and they are getting data from their actuaries and climate scientist, saying it’s going to get massively worse. There is rapidly growing interest from “big money” private sector investors, In any technology that might solve the climate crisis.
There’s more money investors wanting invest in wind, solar, or hydroelectric projects, than there are projects to invest it. The limiting factor isn’t money.
Believe me, no one would be happier than me to be proven wrong that we can build enough wind, solar, and hydroelectric to get off a fossil fuels by 2050.
But if you extrapolate the current data and the current trend lines, they don’t come anywhere close.
If we also invest in nuclear, we come closer.
Let's say you have money to invest in the energy sector. You take a look at nuclear and find that while the regulatory environment is very high, it isn't insurmountable. The Department of Energy has shown a willingness to sign off on new nuclear projects as long as you do your homework. It's a lot, but it can be done.
Next, you look at the history of building projects. The baseline for time to build is 5 years, but everyone knows this is a lie. That thing isn't getting done for at least 7 years, often more like 10. Its budget will expand by about the same proportion. You won't see a dime of profit until it's done. If it can't raise the money from either yourself or other investors to cover the shortfall, then it's useless and your entire investment will be wiped out.
The Westinghouse AP1000 design was hoped to get around some of the boutique engineering challenges of building nuclear in the past. It did not.
If you instead invest into solar or wind, you'll find some regulatory hurdles. Mainly from the local NIMBYs. The hookup agreements with the utility companies take some doing, but it's not outrageous. Looking at the construction side of things, these projects are pretty much turnkey. They don't require any specialized engineering (not the way nuclear does). They tend to get done on time and within budget.
This, too has been studied. The average cost overrun of a solar megaproject is 1%. For wind, 13%, and it's 20% for water. Want to know what it is for nuclear? It's right near the top of the list at 120%. The only megaprojects on the list that do worse are Olympic Games and nuclear storage.
With numbers like that, it's no wonder investors are dumping their money into solar and wind.