this post was submitted on 29 Oct 2023
444 points (98.7% liked)
Technology
59475 readers
5245 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
I'm glad the article mentioned a number of potential stumbling blocks. Working in the mining sector, I do worry about the ability of metals production to keep pace with demand for all that a solar/wind/EV revolution entails. Metals are certainly the oil of this century though. Our end of the trade show floor has grown so much since I first started in the industry and the oil exploration people are just staring at their feet right now.
I think some people underestimate how much work will need to be done on grids before solar/wind can dominate? The article does mention this also, though without any specifics. Where I live, there is a lot of solar/wind development happening, but it's more due to the fact that the grid still has some spare capacity left in it than the area being especially well-suited to renewables. In many jurisdictions, they can't hook up any additional capacity without major work on the grid. You might think that they could still replace existing fossil fuel energy production at least, but it is not as straightforward as you may think to move from a centralized power generation model to something more distributed. This is where nuclear may still hold some advantage, since it is centralized by nature and can fit into the existing infrastructure with less drama.
One thing the article did not mention is the NIMBY backlash problem. In my area, some wind projects were outright cancelled and solar scaled back due to community activism. This drives me nuts, frankly. Where were all these people when coal plants were blackening the skies? But it is what it is. The next phase will be to add grid storage, but even there, there are signs of community blowback.
If mining can't keep up, recycling will fill in the gaps. We toss a lot of metal into landfill and regularly replace electronics that could easily be repaired. I think we'll be fine.
I took a team of three electricians about four hours to install solar on my home. They were done by lunch time and did a second home in the neighbourhood the same day, and that included connecting the panels to the grid — most of the power we produce is sold to the grid. It didn't cost much either - the four hours labour was about a third of the cost to give you some idea.
It's a relatively small system, but even on an overcast day they produce more power than we use even under peak load situations. On a sunny day it produces more power than we use in a week.
Obviously we're still drawing power from the grid overnight... but I was happy to learn (after seeing the metrics produced by our new solar system) that we don't use much power overnight and could easily use less - it's mostly just our kitchen fridge which is close to end of life anyway and we will be replacing it with a more efficient one.
Overnight grid power can easily be covered by wind/hydro. NIMBY is definitely a struggle there, but it can be managed. And nuclear is even worse - nobody wants to live near a nuclear power plant. Nobody even wants to live near a road that is occasionally used to transport radioactive materials.
But the real deathblow for nuclear power is it takes an average 7.5 years to build a nuclear power plant. That doesn't compare favourably at all to 4 hours for an adequately sized solar system and anyone building a nuclear power plant runs the risk that by the time they start operations, they might find nobody wants to buy the power they're producing. In seven years time there's a pretty good chance I will have added a battery to my solar system and we'll only be drawing power from the grid if there's something wrong with our own power system. There's no way I'd get behind investing billions of dollars in a nuclear power plant - there's just too much risk.
A huge portion of our overnight power consumption right now is big industry consumers that operate at night because baseload power is really cheap at night. That demand won't last - as more and more solar is installed those operations are transitioning to daytime operations. It's already started, aluminium for example is now about a hundred dollars per ton cheaper to produce with solar than with fossil fuels. Which means the entire industry needs to switch over, and fast, or else they won't be able to find anyone who will buy what they're producing.
Look into a Tesla powerwall. Not only does it give you a battery for overnight usage, but I don't even know when there's a blackout anymore, cause the power wall automatically takes us off the grid when the grid is down. If you're connected directly to the grid, your panels have to shut off when there is a blackout so they don't fry the techs working on the needed repairs.
So you prefer coal? Gas? Hydro isn't that ecofriendly either. Solar and wind are cute but unstable, you need a stable source to keep the grid going - and/or batteries, which aren't that green either.
Perhaps if all the oil subsidies went to nuclear instead, a lot of way safer reactors would leave the drawing board. Nuclear didn't stop evolving at Chernobyl you know.
Nuclear does not help. It has nothing to do with safety issues (perceived or otherwise), and everything to do with economics. It has not solved its cost issues, and probably won't.
Solar and wind want to be mixed with some other tech that can ramp up when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing. Nuclear wants to stay at a steady pace all day long. They don't work together. What will happen is to increase the times when solar and wind are overproducing and have to be shut off, thereby cutting into their economic advantages.
Fortunately, we don't have to go all out with solar and wind. Getting to 95% solar and wind with a modest amount of storage capacity is fully achievable in less than a decade. Gas/coal plants would be turned on for a tiny fraction of the year. Getting that last 5% will take longer, but just getting that far will be a huge change.
There is no reasonable plan that gets us nuclear in less than a decade. SMRs are not going to be in full production before then. Traditional nuclear plants have taken at least 10 years to build after serious budget and schedule overruns. If you had all the permits signed and ready to go today, you would not be able to do it.
Now, I do hope we start putting SMRs in some less traditional places, like ships.
Interesting...