Submitted by ForHidingSquirrels t3_10xwl7q in Futurology
Comments
Riversntallbuildings t1_j7vxu9n wrote
> I don’t know of a single nation that opposes it.
You are aware that Donald Trump was President of the US only 2 1/2 years ago right?
I am happy for the success, however I am still very mindful of conservative and capitalist (Oil & legacy auto) opposition.
The economics are clear, but there are plenty of people and organizations that are doing a lot to slow the progress.
Semifreak t1_j7y9cig wrote
Sure, but as a general view, it seems clean energy is getting support overall. It was only a few decades that some nations wouldn't even have any plans for clean energy at all. There will always be some groups with business incentive to go another direction, but it wouldn't, for example, be the stance o f the US government to say 'the heck with clear energy!' over the span of a decade.
It is my ignorance talking, but I was very pleasantly surprised that even China, India, and African countries are onboard. Maybe I shouldn't have been surprised. Maybe articles from decades ago made me doubt 'emerging global economies' would be in on this 'new green pipe dream'.
Exciting times we live in. Heck, I personally know an older neighbor that finally bought a sun-powered light for the front of their house and he can't stop being gobsmacked at the whole thing. "Free light?! No wires?!".
It hits differently just reading about something as opposed of trying it and seeing it for yourself.
Another guy said their next car they'll buy (in half a decade or so) will be electric. That was never thought of to some people just a few short years ago.
Things are happening and happening quickly. I am glad this is a global phenomena as well. Tech progress is becoming more and more ubiquitous. There was a time where the difference in tech between nations was generational. Now the majority of the planet has electricity and half have access to the internet. That is absolutely insane to me.
I talked to people that are now grandparents and some even still middle-aged that told me they remember growing up without electricity at all. Now they all have social media accounts and streaming Netflix shows. One lady showed me how her dishwasher 'talks' to her through her phone telling her it is time to empty the dishes.
That's wild. And all that is within one lifetime or less.
APEHASKILLEDAPE t1_j7z202p wrote
I was on two waiting lists for EV trucks but decided against it for now. I’m going to wait till they iron out the bugs and come down in price more. And every other week there seems to be a better cheaper battery technology coming down the pike so that makes me want to wait too.
Semifreak t1_j7z455j wrote
Yup, plus where you live still matters in these early stages (for charging).
I read one analyst that expect EVs to reach price parity with ICE in 2025 and the following year EVs would be cheaper than ICE cars.
Even if that prediction is off by a few years, that is still relatively soon.
Heck, NASA and others are experimenting with e-planes now! That's something I haven't even considered. But I guess if you have the density/weight of batteries right, planes can be an option.
Maybe in 100 years there will be no fossil powered vehicles or transport of any type. It is certainly not crazy to entertain such thought seeing what is possible today.
Man, I wish the show Tomorrows World was still on. Check out their episode predicting the future. They nailed it! And the future isn't just constrained to today, so some of the things that are slightly off (but we still have similar ideas to it today) might be possible in the coming years and decades.
Here's the episode for fun. I LOVE seeing old predictions about the future:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFTPoiXU_EI
That was in 1989 predicting the home of 2020. Imagine what things will be like in another 40 years!
Bon_of_a_Sitch t1_j7z99dc wrote
>You are aware that Donald Trump was President of the US only 2 1/2 years ago right?
I put panels on my house in 2017 so what does who POTUS was at the time change about that. Not like it was criminalized.
APEHASKILLEDAPE t1_j7z1qdw wrote
Stop, no one is opposed to solar and wind just the lies told on how it will replace oil and gas all by itself anytime soon. Nuclear solar wind and hydro is the future in every state,
Vericeon t1_j7ursfn wrote
> At the same time, global electricity generation from both natural gas and coal is expected to remain flat over the next three years.
Wouldn’t we want to see these declining steeply to have much optimism for 2050?
94746382926 t1_j7v4gre wrote
The IEA has long history of greatly underestimating the adoption of renewables. To the point where I question if the Oil lobby influences their reports. Every single year they revise their estimates and they're always an underestimate. We are currently way above their best case predictions from 5 or 10 years ago. For some reason they always try to model the growth as a linear graph when it has clearly been following an S curve for quite some time now.
goodsam2 t1_j7vltou wrote
Today we are past their best scenarios in like 50 years. The report is honestly baffling. it's also been like that for a decade.
https://rameznaam.com/2020/05/14/solars-future-is-insanely-cheap-2020/
dontpet t1_j7vt028 wrote
The article includes this quote.
>“For many years the IEA earned the reputation of vastly underestimating renewable energy growth,” he said, “so there might be a tendency to bend over backwards and err on the side of exuberant optimism.”
Did they give inflated electrons this time? The report itself says
>Our outlook for 2023 to 2025 shows that renewable power generation is set to increase more than all other sources combined, with an annualised growth of over 9%.
I get confused at that point not knowing if they mean any of three things.
9% growth in energy output annually
9% growth of installation of equipment compared to the previous year
9% growth of equipment from the previous accumulated
Anyway, hope they have vastly underestimated as usual. Every time I look into their assumptions they did a significant bias toward minimal growth.
Yesterday I looked at their projections for our mining and minerals needs for example and they were so pessimistic and already demonstrably wrong.
Semifreak t1_j7veuip wrote
That's just 3 years. I'm wondering about what will happen in 30 years. And even 30 years is not really that long.
The speed of progress is astonishing. So much will change and happen in 2050 it is ridiculous...ridiculously awesome, that is!
stevey_frac t1_j7yrqu9 wrote
I'm hoping we get inexpensive A SMB reactors, or supercritical geothermal borehole tech going.
Semifreak t1_j7yt9rr wrote
Now we're talking!
Maybe even break the fusion power challenges. Re0designing much more efficient experimental tools for research from medicine to space studies. Way better batteries, too.
The sky's the limit!
Rofel_Wodring t1_j7zlah5 wrote
Expect commercially viable fusion at the end of this decade. Maybe not an actual plant that provides your home power (though there will definitely be viable near-term plans to do so) but unless I've been the wrongest I've been about anything in my life this decade will be the last decade of that stupid nuclear fusion joke.
Semifreak t1_j818tqo wrote
Things are certainly looking up. MIT will run a test in 2025 with their 'mini' sized reactor (tiny magnets). ITER in 2035. And there is a third company using plasma instead of magnets I read about but I forget when their test run will be.
Of course it will be decades till actual homes run on actual fusion plants power after a successful 'proof of concept' from at least ITER or maybe MIT, but at least we can know for sure if fusion is doable or not in just a decade or so.
Also, 'decades' is not a long time, really. Nuclear power plants were first suggested in 1941 and the first commercial one started in 1957. I think even skeptics don't have a problem imagining fusion power would be real by 2100. The question is how soon can we get it working- if we can, just to keep an open mind. After all, everything is vaporware till it happens.
Let's just hope governments can streamline the paperwork and fix the crazy, crazy, 'over head' and 'manager' costs to speed things up.There is a SINGLE public toilet in San Fran that is costing 1.7 million USD to build. California's high speed rail costs as much as the International Space Station (which costs its weight in gold due to the cost of delivering something to space).
Today, building a nuclear power plant to take up to 7 years or more and that is because all of the red tapes and permits...
But maybe the public will get excited for fusion once it is proven commercially feasible and pressure lawmakers to get it rolled out faster. After all, it seems the talk about favoring clean energy is growing by the year.
ChargersPalkia t1_j7v5wp7 wrote
the IEA and any other energy outlook has historically always underestimated renewables, I would confidently bet you that by 2025 we'd be in a much better state than that
goodsam2 t1_j7vmqrq wrote
I mean growth stopped, renewables are cheaper than starting new plants.
Then renewables replace retiring Fossil fuel plants.
Then renewables accelerate retirement plans for fossil fuels.
Also natural gas and renewables work well together in a brief period because if the sun and wind stop you can add natural gas easily.
DGrey10 t1_j7uyurj wrote
The problem is that total use is increasing. So flat gas and coal absolute use is a reduction in the percent of the electric generation mix. But it means the C emissions haven't changed, they just aren't getting worse.
dontpet t1_j7vt9uc wrote
This is what a tipping point looks like at the top. If renewables continue in their growth pattern we will be pushing down fossil fuel growth very soon if not already.
[deleted] t1_j7xxo6n wrote
[removed]
netz_pirat t1_j7ywddc wrote
Three years is pretty short though. For Germany, I expect the energy consumption to rise due to heat pumps replacing gas /oil heating and electric cars replacing ice engines.
I don't think we can increase renewable energy generation fast enough to cover those as well as the existing generation in the next few years, but it's still a overall emissions reduction.
Rofel_Wodring t1_j7zlts4 wrote
Electricity consumption, yes. Energy consumption?
I think people would be appalled to learn how much energy gets wasted on things like legacy HVAC and cheap housing. Let me put it this way: energy efficiently management is sort of a scam in the area I live, but the legacy HVAC is so wasteful and suboptimized that even a charlatan can bring results.
[deleted] t1_j7v7ytt wrote
Personally I don't think any level of just emissions reduction will dodge catostrophic climate change at this point. It's just not plausible that at this level of rapid change, warming and ice melt that reducing emissions by 2050 or such would be really anywhere near enough.
At best you have to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere and at worst you will have to employ some level of solar blocking to reduce heat build-up. It's a long term Co2 build-up and the CO2 doesn't go away quickly, so emissions reductions are just bets that we can limit warming. They aren't guarantees of anything and that's kind of the problem. The upside is solar blocking would lower heat immediately so it would be a good way to combat the core problem, which is heat, vs trying to only attack it from the insulating gas angle.
To me ice melt and changing climate happening well before models predicted means it's already too late for just emissions reduction. You certain still need emissions reduction, but betting the planets future on such a passive plan with no proof our modeling is accurate enough to make such a bet AND when we have other options to limit warming just seems dumb.
StateChemist t1_j7w213a wrote
Too late for what? It’s only too late if humanity stops working on the solve.
Is it going to get worse before it gets better? Yeah I’m with you there, it probably will.
So what can we do? Work harder at turning it around and not let up or just give up and die?
You think people are passively saying ‘well this one band aid is obviously enough, good job’ there are tons of sectors looking for ways to forestall disaster and we need all of the fixes in the toolbox.
Emission reduction is a requirement because you can’t clean up the mess if the hose is still spraying everywhere while you are trying to mop it up. There are also lots of ideas for cleaning up the mess as well which are all great, and we can work on all phases of the project at the same time!
It may take centuries to undo what we’ve done in the last 100 years but we are actually starting to believe we can turn things around, and with constant applied pressure to a large enough lever you can move the world.
But would you kindly get off the wrong side of the lever? It works better with us all pushing over here instead of undermining those who are attacking the problem from all sides.
Tower21 t1_j7vz53z wrote
Don't tell this to /r/collapse, they are dead set on technology never improving and we are all gonna die.
Unfair-Room-7938 t1_j7w89zr wrote
We are all gonna die
elbimio t1_j7wnxfq wrote
Well yeah, with that attitude.
Unfair-Room-7938 t1_j7zemmj wrote
Yeah well come live in Ohio and see how your attitude is after 20 years lol
TopicRepulsive7936 t1_j7wiqwq wrote
Don't tell this to r/collapse.
d_e_l_u_x_e t1_j7xhm02 wrote
Brutally true
[deleted] t1_j7xn89m wrote
[deleted]
Tower21 t1_j7xspdn wrote
Eh, modular reactors have promise, the real prize is in energy storage.
ForHidingSquirrels OP t1_j7ulkbf wrote
The IEA says renewable electricity from wind and solar are on pace to manufacture enough hardware to generate enough electricity to meet all electricity needs - the report also suggests that all energy needs can be met in time. Including industrial and transportation.
This is being done aggressively by the Chinese - who are using it for national security needs at this point. The nation spent $500 billion in clean energy - equal to the rest of the world.
rubixd t1_j7unrnj wrote
> The nation spent $500 billion in clean energy - equal to the rest of the world.
Energy independence is a hell of an incentive.
JGCities t1_j7uu4iz wrote
Not having to worry about NIMBY's helps too.
No one in China can stop them from placing wind or solar any place they want. Lot of environmental issues and lawsuits to slow that down in other countries.
user_dan t1_j7uxsve wrote
I too wish I could slowly die of lung cancer so a public infrastructure project can finish a year earlier. We ALL can dream.
JGCities t1_j7v5416 wrote
We could have been 100% nuclear decades ago but it was the greens who shut down building of all new nuclear plants.
Ironic.
[deleted] t1_j7vaemf wrote
Nah, it was just nuclear cost too much and couldn't compete without constant government subsidies. Money rules the world bro, if nuclear could make good money all the public complaining would mean jack and shit just like it does with medicine.
The Levelized Cost Of Electric for nuclear is just too high compared to gas or coal over the years. Nuclear is so complex it could never get the cost down and while it may seem simple enough to be like BUt GLOBal WARmING could have been prevented, that's questionable since power plants are just one part of the problem AND you're still talking about killing a lot of people with high energy costs.
Plus there is near zero chance most of the world, aka the developing world, even has an option to go nuclear. Talk about lack of energy independance, imagine buying into a power model that only like 3 countries sell. That would suck and that's only if their countries allow the export in the first place, a policy that could change at any moment. It's easy to see why most nations that don't have gas would go with coal, because unless you're the country making the nuclear reactor AND you're ok paying 2-3 times more for power AND you waive the added risks/costs of meltdown and pollution storage... it kind of sucks. There is also a bit of a water use problem as we saw as rivers in Europe got low, so all that would have to be fixed too.
That's a lot of money going to nuclear, which isn't improving rapidly, that is better spent pushing batteries and renewables.. which also have WAY WAY more uses than nuclear since you can expot them all over the world and install them in your home or power computers and robots with better batteries. There is a lot more vertical integration benefits where many products can benefit at once from something like solar and batteries and not much beside power plants for nuclear.
The problem is investors don't invest in nuclear and they don't because the return on investment takes way too long and it takes way too long because the cost to operate the plant is too high..
That's what LCOE means, so you if you cared you would know the LCOE on nuclear is too high to replace gas and coal without MAJOR economic slowdowns.
All that and then solar and batteries still keep getting better and their LCOE drops below nuclear and you're left with a bunch of nuclear reactors nobody can run cost effectively.
THAT is why nuclear died.. complexity = costs.. which is 100% predictable and obvious so your brain should really not need to create some secondary excuse. Costs are only like THE MOST IMPORTANT single factor in everything, so the only way you can be surprised nuclear failed is because you paid no attention to the costs of each power generation model.. aka you basically aren't interested in power generation buy want to have a say.
The data is SUPER easy to find, so I don't see a good excuse to not realize costs are what sunk nuclear.
If not then how did the same pattern happen all over the world? You're telling me the citizens of every country all kind of agreed nuclear was a bad idea and that's the reason it didn't catch on, not the fact it's 2-3 times more to run?
You basically need to invent a global conspiracy for that to make sense. It wasn't just one public, it was ALL the publics in all the nations. Sorry, but that's smells like BS.. it was the high complexity and cost and the fact renewables and batteries are improving far faster than nuclear.
The thing people don't get is that the best way to generate power will ALWAYS be the simplest way with reasonable costs than can be scaled globally and nuclear is none of those!
We don't need unlimited power. We just need the simplest way to meet global power needs. the simpler method that can accomplish that goal will win out because over time costs will always scale in favor of lower complexity. Less moving parts = less costs and nuclear is a lot of moving parts.
Viper_63 t1_j7vhyxd wrote
>You basically need to invent a global conspiracy for that to make sense.
The consensus in those circles seems to be that environmental groups/"the greens"/[party or group of choice you don't like] where all funded by the fossil fuel industry and the Soviet Union Russia to make nuclear look bad. I shit you not that what's I've seen people arguing on this subreddit.
no bro nuclear would totally be economic and viable if we would just poured more funds into it. Trust me bro, the key to making nuclear finally work is to build smaller and less efficient plants.
Like, have you actually looked at the subsidies nuclear has received? Granted this is nearly a decade old, but it's not like the situation has changed all that much:
It's not like we haven't already established that 100% renewables is viable:
>Recent studies show that a global transition to 100% renewable energy across all sectors – power, heat, transport and desalination well before 2050 is feasible. According to a review of the 181 peer-reviewed papers on 100% renewable energy that were published until 2018, "[t]he great majority of all publications highlights the technical feasibility and economic viability of 100% RE systems." A review of 97 papers published since 2004 and focusing on islands concluded that across the studies 100% renewable energy was found to be "technically feasible and economically viable." A 2022 review found that the main conclusion of most of the literature in the field is that 100% renewables is feasible worldwide at low cost.
>Existing technologies, including storage, are capable of generating a secure energy supply at every hour throughout the year. The sustainable energy system is more efficient and cost effective than the existing system. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated in their 2011 report that there is little that limits integrating renewable technologies for satisfying the total global energy demand.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%25_renewable_energy
The IPCC pointed this out over a decade ago.
Viper_63 t1_j7vitbj wrote
>We could have been 100% nuclear decades ago but it was the greens who shut down building of all new nuclear plants.
That's pure misinformation.
https://phys.org/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-energy.html
Nuclear basically isn't scalable beyond 1 TW globally. Geothermal energy alone has twice that potential. Nuclear is pretty much a dead end as far terrestial utility-scale use is concerned.
Blaming "[political group you don't like]" for the issues inherent to the technology isn't going to solve anything.
[deleted] t1_j7vmiqp wrote
[removed]
rileyoneill t1_j7xx5ne wrote
No. The hippies did zero damage to the nuclear industry. It was all WallStreet as the nuclear industry had constantly rising costs and weaker than expected long term earnings.
Any new nuke plant today will not be commercially viable in 10-15 years.
[deleted] t1_j7v84nn wrote
[removed]
ForHidingSquirrels OP t1_j7xherz wrote
Nuclear was failing in the US in the early 70s long before ‘the greensa’. Low knowledge nuclearvangelists say this because they don’t accept reality.
goodsam2 t1_j7vmfl4 wrote
I just don't see how it's possible with current tech.
I'm a huge optimist with renewables with batteries and their S curves. I just think we have all the answers to increase renewables and batteries for another decade(which we probably have a better idea of what to do in a decade in 8/9 years) but having a 100% wind/solar grid with batteries is hella expensive, some firm dispatchable energy is required. The amount of solar panels equal to 100% up time goes up a stupid amount.
I think we get to a floor of 60% renewable(based on current tech) but 100% is a problem.
Hydro can fill this some places but others I'm not so sure.
dontpet t1_j7vtzhd wrote
I look forward to the time when we are confronting the question of what to do about the last 10%.
I suspect we will have much better answers by then than nuclear power.
goodsam2 t1_j7vx1ov wrote
Me too.
Yeah I mean some niche places are getting close to the upper end but renewables can get us rather far.
Yeah we have clear answers about what to add on the marginal short to medium term for decarbonization. Something like 60% renewable on average is the estimated floor I've seen and by the time we get closer to that we'll know what to do for the next part or at least yeah a better idea.
I think geothermal is a clear winner with improved drilling techniques. Leading to less obvious geothermal being added. IDK how far that goes but lots of places could add some.
stevey_frac t1_j7ysvcs wrote
They are demonstrating geothermal boreholes with plasma drills now. The plan is to do a 20km deep borehole, in just 100 days, next year.
If that is actually achievable, we can drill a borehole next to every single coal plant in the world, and run the turbine off of super critical geothermal steam... Basically forever.
stevey_frac t1_j7ysn4t wrote
Because you don't just use all solar?
You mix solar, with geo-seperated wind farms, and existing hydro resources.
It tends to be sunny during the day and windy at night. It tends to be sunny in the summer and windy in winter. They kind of naturally dovetail. Also, off -Shore wind has incredibly high capacity factors...
Batteries, especially cheap and durable LFP batteries can definitely help cover peak loads, and then we start talking long scale storage, with things like ammonia / hydrogen storage, where we can start storing weeks worth of energy.
And even still, you probably have natural gas turbines hanging around for a few decades for those low periods, but we use them less and less as we increase storage and over build our wind and solar installs.
Huge thermal storage for industrial process heat is also coming.
goodsam2 t1_j7z6raw wrote
>And even still, you probably have natural gas turbines hanging around for a few decades for those low periods, but we use them less and less as we increase storage and over build our wind and solar installs.
That's not the 100% promised that I don't think we have answers to. We have answers for the next step for a decade+ but don't know the grid at 100% carbon free.
With geothermal like you mentioned in your other comment the math all works fine on top of already built hydro.
The study I always talks about 80% renewables with 12 hours of batteries (which is a shit ton) and 20% firm hydro, nuclear geothermal, biomass etc.
stevey_frac t1_j830yme wrote
I mean, the batteries are already coming. Ontario is bringing a 250 MW battery facility online point the next two years, as a part of a plan to deploy 1500 MW worth of battery capacity.
That's nearly 10% of our average demand being supplied by batteries, and it's cost effective to do so...
We can charge them with cheap overnight power, and use it to trim our peaks... Or prevent wind turbine from curtailing by starting to charge our battery banks.
12h hours of battery storage for our province should come out to only about 20 billion assuming you can do it with $100/kwh with LFP cells.
Considering we just spent $13 billion on a nuclear refurbishment, this doesn't seem crazy levels of investment at all.
My number might be a bit optimistic, but I'm assuming building the biggest battery plant in the world will net you some discounts.
rileyoneill t1_j7xx08e wrote
Here in California there are periods where during the day, renewables cover 70% of the demand on the CAISO. 15 years ago critics were claiming it was never going to surpass 10%. If we double the current solar, on most days, when the sun is shining, the solar output would be comparable to the total demand.
Renewables are dropping so much in price that it will be soon cheaper for households in the US to full rooftop solar and battery storage and then only buy the absolute minimum energy from the grid.
goodsam2 t1_j7xxl3x wrote
But that's the thing is that California has a bunch of natural gas peaked plants because it's hard to get over 70% renewable.
I mean double the solar panels and you are adding excess capacity at the wrong times. The duck curve is a thing so the marginal value added from a solar panel means getting over 80% is incredibly hard with batteries.
Having some amount of firm and dispatchable power is necessary unless our batteries improve an insane amount. Lithium ion isn't the best store of electricity over say 6 months when you are banking solar energy from the winter.
rileyoneill t1_j7y3g6n wrote
We had all the natural gas first. The renewables have only really been added over the last 10 years, and the majority of them since like 2016. That 70% is not any sort of hard limit. It was literally the maximum renewable today on the CAISO. Despite still being winter, our solar still puts out and hits its capacity all the time. We get sunshine in the winter months.
We do not have more solar than we have demand. Solar is around 13GW on the CAISO. The demand has never been under 18GW, most days its in the mid 20s, and in the summer days its in the 30-50GW range. So this idea that solar over producing is somehow a big problem is not founded on reality.
We do not need batteries for 6 months. We only need batteries for about 2 days, and even 8 hours would reduce our natural gas consumption considerably.
The plan is to keep installing solar, wind, and batteries and gradually ween off natural gas, to eventually between those three main systems we are not running natural gas. We might keep the plants around and they might get fired up 2 weeks a year, but it would be an enormous reduction.
We have about 10GWH of battery on the CAISO. I figure we are about 1% where it needs to be.
goodsam2 t1_j7y3zot wrote
The point is not maximum 100% is easy but 100% on the cloudy not windy days you need electricity. There is 0 downtime.
There is enough to continue to reduce consumption but there basically is not a 100% renewable grid. The natural gas would be run sporadically contributing around 10% of power on the low end.
Getting to 100% electricity is hard with renewables. I'm not disputing 60% or even up to like 80%, 90% is a little niche these days.
We have the technology to make massive improvements but not the answer to 100% renewable 0 down time.
dunderpust t1_j7yo1i9 wrote
Some people thinks that this means we can just give up on renewables. As if in 20 years time, when we are reaching the crunch points, we will had have no technological development at all. Heck, if massive electrification happens and we get, say, 70% of our energy needs from low-carbon sources, we have already bought ourselves time for further technological development, and that's a huge boon already.
goodsam2 t1_j7z6xd1 wrote
Yeah but it's a huge distinction. We don't have the technology to finish the job but we do have the technology for the next steps for a decade+
dunderpust t1_j828fx6 wrote
Yep, no excuse for not going full speed ahead.
rileyoneill t1_j830cq4 wrote
We have enough natural gas to run the entire grid during a windless and cloudy day. Our demand on those days is usually fairly low. The extra deman for brownouts was due to us having brief periods of 50GW of demand during an extreme heatwave.
The periods of extreme demand do not occur during cloudless days, the demand is brought on by AC. I have never seen on the CAISO where the daytime solar demand is under 20%, statewide storms like that are extremely rare.
My point is that if we are 90% renewables and 10% natural gas, that is a huge improvement. Then perhaps it can be 91% and 9% natural gas.
Because 6 months out of the year is extremely predictable weather regarding sunshine, we can probably get by with 300GWH of battery, 70GW of solar, and 25GW of wind. May 1st, October 31st could likely be 95% renewable.
Tony Seba of Rethink X made a presentation where they actually went and tracked historical weather data, then designed a system that would have 100% uptime. They then took the cost projected prices for renewables and gave capacity numbers for solar, wind and battery storage for California, Texas, and New England.
​
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zgwiQ6BoLA
​
The main idea is that solar will be so cheap that it will be viable to just overbuild by some huge factor so that on cloudy days where output is diminished by 80%, the remaining 20% is still collecting and that 20% is enough to satisfy demand, taking the edge off the batteries.
In one example he proposed 330GW of solar for California. Our normal demand is 20-35GW (with peak summer at 50GW). But it would be 30GW powering the grid and 300GW charging batteries. So every 1 hour of sunshine covers 8-10 hours of battery storage.
99redproblooms t1_j7waqdd wrote
When the world's power is 100% renewable, I wonder if we'll still have to deal with assholes telling us it isn't possible.
d_e_l_u_x_e t1_j7xgzjd wrote
Imagine harnessing the power of a multi billionaire year old near unlimited power source that’s 93 million miles away. It’s free and won’t stop for a while, it’s there for the taking if you want it. Amazing how we got this far as a species when we are still burning dead prehistoric life forms from the depths of the ocean, putting everything at risk when there’s literally a bigger better power source literally hitting us in the face (in the form of UV waves). Greed is a hell of a drug.
dunderpust t1_j7ypgrd wrote
Well, to be fair, fossil fuels is like the cheat code to the game. We had been burning stuff since time immemorial, made sense to burn this new oil and gas stuff we dug out of the ground as it burned really well, and why stop burning coal?
If anything, we are extraordinarily lucky we got solar and wind to work as well as we have in time. Reports coming out now are starting to indicate we have a good chance at limiting ourselves to 2c warming. If it all works out, I think our future descendants might view fossil fuels as the necessary evil that brought us into the green age... or so one can hope...
bigtimephonk t1_j7zjifa wrote
But what about the oil companies??? How will their CEOs afford their third yacht???
ItsAConspiracy t1_j7zkmby wrote
Eh, the article says:
> Renewable energy and nuclear power will meet almost all of the growth in global demand for electricity over the next three years.
That's a long way from "renewables satiating the world's appetite for electricity." It's just the new growth and even that is partly taken up by nuclear. They say coal and gas will remain constant, globally. And even all this is based on not having extreme weather events or a big economic recovery in China.
jjanelle99 t1_j816ynd wrote
What about the absolute downside to nuclear ,where does all the radioactive materials go ? In your backyard or maybe Nevada's desert ,those creatures don't really matter do they ? Look what happened in Chernoble and more recently Japan;nuclear is not the answer . When a technology needs humans to maintain it indefinitely even after decommissioning or there would be a nuclear meltdown that is a big f..king problem.
alecs_stan t1_j8keehp wrote
You do not know enough to form a valid opinion. Learn more.
FuturologyBot t1_j7up4k8 wrote
The following submission statement was provided by /u/ForHidingSquirrels:
The IEA says renewable electricity from wind and solar are on pace to manufacture enough hardware to generate enough electricity to meet all electricity needs - the report also suggests that all energy needs can be met in time. Including industrial and transportation.
This is being done aggressively by the Chinese - who are using it for national security needs at this point. The nation spent $500 billion in clean energy - equal to the rest of the world.
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/10xwl7q/renewables_are_on_track_to_satiate_the_worlds/j7ulkbf/
[deleted] t1_j7uux7q wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j7vmuio wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j7vtmmj wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j7wzq17 wrote
[removed]
FindTheRemnant t1_j7vn7bz wrote
Looking just at electricity is deceptive. New renewable energy consumption not come close to keeping up with the increase in fossil fuel energy consumption.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2023/02/Energy-reality.png
Renewable energy is not only not going to satiate global energy demand, its actually losing ground.
dontpet t1_j7vue5z wrote
That link didn't open for me. You might need a better source anyway to have some credibility.
LummoxJR t1_j7vxz4h wrote
Forget it, Jake. It's r/Futurology.
In all seriousness, though, renewables will never be able to fully satisfy demand, no matter how hard certain subs try to speak it into existence. They still belong in the conversation, and progress in better efficiency, stirafe, recycling, material sourcing, are all good to hear—but they won't ever completely replace non-renewables.
We seriously need a lot more innovation and actual development in the nuclear space too.
Viper_63 t1_j7wrj48 wrote
>Recent studies show that a global transition to 100% renewable energy across all sectors – power, heat, transport and desalination well before 2050 is feasible.[5][6][7][8] According to a review of the 181 peer-reviewed papers on 100% renewable energy that were published until 2018, "[t]he great majority of all publications highlights the technical feasibility and economic viability of 100% RE systems."[9] A review of 97 papers published since 2004 and focusing on islands concluded that across the studies 100% renewable energy was found to be "technically feasible and economically viable."[12] A 2022 review found that the main conclusion of most of the literature in the field is that 100% renewables is feasible worldwide at low cost.[13]
>Existing technologies, including storage, are capable of generating a secure energy supply at every hour throughout the year. The sustainable energy system is more efficient and cost effective than the existing system.[14] The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated in their 2011 report that there is little that limits integrating renewable technologies for satisfying the total global energy demand.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%25_renewable_energy
In all seriousness though, maybe it's time to accept expert oppinion on that matter.
Expert opinion being that nuclear is too slow, too costly and simply not scalable enough, while going 100% renewable is not only feasible but likely also cheaper.
https://phys.org/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-energy.html
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-nuclearpower-idUSKBN1W909J
https://spectator.clingendael.org/en/publication/nuclear-energy-too-costly-and-too-late
By all means, keep regurgitating misinfo pushed by conservative think tanks to funnel even more subsidies into nuclear and fossil fuels.
dunderpust t1_j7yp3dv wrote
Whatever gets built that replaces coal and gas plants and doesn't let out carbon, we should invest massively in. Nuclear has its place, maybe, but there's a lot of countries that cannot and maybe should not be nuclear powered. Renewables are fast and cheap and it's not debatable that they can solve a big chunk of the problem. Until we see where the limit is, build the shit out of them as it has immediate positive effects.
alecs_stan t1_j8kf47e wrote
You are very resolute with words like "never" and "ever" missing the fact that we don't even need to replace non-renewables completely. If we reach a market share of let's say 50% we increase our window of action, allowing us more time to create better tech and find better solutions.
LummoxJR t1_j8kxc2u wrote
That's what I mean, though. Renewables belong in the conversation as part of the solution; they'll never be the entire solution. Not till we develop the tech to build a Dyson swarm, anyway.
moser512 t1_j7w6h2p wrote
Humans have spent roughly 4.5 trillion dollars on renewables like wind and solar. I’m that time, energy derived from petroleum products has decreased from 83% to 82% globally.
Wind and solar are intermittent sources of energy. They don’t produce power when when the sun isn’t shining or wind blowing. Furthermore, they require massive amounts of resource extraction via mining and refining to create the end product. After roughly 20 years, windmills and solar panels end up in landfills almost as large as the area of land they were built on.
I think they have place in the overall energy mix. But they produce very little energy, and there is very little “renewable” about them.
dunderpust t1_j7yopig wrote
How much did we spend on non-renewable sources then? You are surely aware that 1. That money was the inefficient starting boost paid for by rich countries to push prices of renewables down so that the real race can start and 2. Energy usage has grown massively in the part of the world that cannot afford renewables - until now when prices has been pushed down? Rich countries emissions are decreasing as RE sources (and energy efficiency) is being added. Only by squinting and looking at a whole world average can one say that switching to renewables is not the way to cut emissions.
Either you're trying to say third world countries of some 5 to 6 billion people should replace their entire energy generation with nuclear power, in which case you are delusional, or you are saying that we should just give up on decarbonizing altogether, in which case you are a nutter or a monster.
Sorry, my tone is quite harsh I realize, but if all you have to say is "it can't be done" then you are just adding noise. We don't know if it can be done but we sure as fuck better give it a good try.
moser512 t1_j7zxi07 wrote
I think it would be wonderful if we were able to achieve the energy needed to maintain our current standard of living from renewable sources. My point was that wind and solar will never come close to doing that.
That was literally the only point I made.
As of right now, nuclear fission is the safest, most reliable, and dense energy source of base load clean power available. Obviously, third world countries don’t have the energy grid to support the type of large reactors that have historically built in the past. Hopefully small modular reactors can change that.
dunderpust t1_j82ars0 wrote
In 2021, renewable energy was almost 6% of world energy. What prevents it from being 16, 60, or 100? The main challenge now is electrification. Whether the electrons comes from PVs or nuclear plants is irrelevant, the only thing that matters is getting enough electricity. My personal opinion is we would should go full speed ahead on nuclear AND renewables, providing nuclear doesn't delay or stop renewables. As in, the sentiment "oh we don't have to build that wind farm, in 5 years time we will have a nuclear plant up and running" has to die. We will need so much electricity that both the nuclear plant and the wind farm combined will not be enough.
Also, I leave you with this graph why people are not expecting miracles from nuclear but supporting renewables:
You may try and convince yourself that exponential curve of wind and solar will break in a year or two, but you'll be more and more alone in that.
Semifreak t1_j7unmce wrote
bullet points from the article:
​
Two caveats mentioned:
If China's economy bounces back, they could use more coal.
The other is bottlenecks like Germany reactivating coal power due to the war in Ukrain.
​
This is great news. I am constantly surprised at how fast and accepted clean energy is. I don't know of a single nation that opposes it. And everyone seems to race on adoption.
I expect big things by 2050.
Go, humans, go!