How anyone can look at the relevant energy density data and conclude that the solution is anything other than nuclear is beyond me. We should have a major reform to the regulatory and permitting process for nuclear and should be heavily investing in making nuclear power cheaper if we have any seriousness as a civilization about economic growth. Even neglecting the carbon free aspect of nuclear, the energy density alone would usher in a new world of energy prosperity.
You should read Eli Dourado on the potential for geothermal, which we could accelerate by giving new geothermal projects the same NEPA exemptions that oil and gas drilling now get. Might or might not scale, but it sure seems worth a try.
I have a little experience in battery technology. Not an expert by any means. But it seems to me that people miss a couple of key points about the technology (again, as I understand it - happy to be corrected if I’m wrong).
First, progress tends to be incremental and linear, so rather slow by our modern expectations for how technologies improve. For example, Noah Smith has a chart captioned “battery density has more than tripled between 1990 and 2010”. But compare that to improvements in semiconductor transistor density in the same period, which were roughly doubling every two years (the so-called “Moore’s Law”, and a trend that extended for decades prior and after that period).
Second, new technologies and approaches are hard to come by - something more like prospecting for oil. Going from “promising start” to “commercially useful” is not a reliable and repeatable process. The chemistries and structures have to be stable and safe in normal environments, at normal temperatures, over reasonably long periods of time. This is a hard problem, based on my understanding.
So I’m just suspicious of claims about batteries somehow solving the problems inherent in solar and wind power. The improvements need to be much more dramatic in a much shorter timeframe than I think is possible.
Put me, then, firmly in the nuclear is the only realistic option camp…
Can't disagree with any of this I'm afraid. I'm a fan of Noah Smith in general but his stuff about batteries seems like a pipe dream. I hope you're wrong but I doubt it.
Liquid fuels and very energy dense which makes them the best option for transportation fuels when you have to take your fuel with you. Converting solar into a liquid fuel might make a lot of sense.
Let’s not forget hydrogen fuel cells… automobile CO2 emissions are about half of traditional gas powered vehicles. Of course it does require natural gas, another hydrocarbon no-no.
If we keep subsidizing solar we will wind up with so much that in certain areas of the country the wholesale cost of electricity during the middle of the day will be zero. The price will then skyrocket as the day progresses into evening. This sort of thing is already happening with wind - subsidized wind power in the Texas Panhandle often has a negative price in the middle of the night.
We have not yet gotten around to focusing our ideas and institutions on cost effective ways to producing and distributing energy in ways that do not emit CO2 into the atmosphere. A tax would be the best way, combined with removing regulatory obstacles to smart grids, nuclear and geothermal, and of course research.
In principle I am agnostic about whether the next doubling of global per capita income will require doubling aggregate energy use.
True conomic growth is completely correlated to energy use. The US peaked in energy consumption in 2007, and it has remained flat since that point in time. This is an economic growth starvation diet. To the extent that we are better off today than we were in 2007 is only because we have off-shored our own energy consumption to China, India, and other developing countries who produce our most energy intensive consumer goods for us.
Nuclear is the only realistic option at this point in time if we are going to eliminate the use of fossil fuels by either fiat or their actual depletion. That we haven't done anything in 40 years on that front suggests nothing but bad news for the United States and Europe going forward. We will be poorer 10 years from now than we are today, and poorer still 10 years after that if we haven't increased our energy supplies and consumption.
Solar and wind generation will require a complete replacement of the power generation capital equipment on a 20-30 year cycle- the stuff just wears out. This cost factor is not included in any of the pie-in-the-sky cost calculations because we haven't yet reached that first rebuild point yet, but it will show up starting around 2025 going forward. Additionally, they won't be viable without a storage capacity in batteries that no one has included in the cost calculations for building out to zero CO2 emissions, and any cursory look at that cost makes both sources of power non-viable for baseload generation purposes- it is just far too expensive since batteries wear out, too, and must be replaced.
I suppose the other option is to outsource everything to China and India, but then CO2 emissions just increase at the same rate that they have for the last century. At some point the Chinese and the Indians will just let us starve in our grass huts since we won't be able buy their goods since we don't produce anything any longer.
How anyone can look at the relevant energy density data and conclude that the solution is anything other than nuclear is beyond me. We should have a major reform to the regulatory and permitting process for nuclear and should be heavily investing in making nuclear power cheaper if we have any seriousness as a civilization about economic growth. Even neglecting the carbon free aspect of nuclear, the energy density alone would usher in a new world of energy prosperity.
You should read Eli Dourado on the potential for geothermal, which we could accelerate by giving new geothermal projects the same NEPA exemptions that oil and gas drilling now get. Might or might not scale, but it sure seems worth a try.
I have a little experience in battery technology. Not an expert by any means. But it seems to me that people miss a couple of key points about the technology (again, as I understand it - happy to be corrected if I’m wrong).
First, progress tends to be incremental and linear, so rather slow by our modern expectations for how technologies improve. For example, Noah Smith has a chart captioned “battery density has more than tripled between 1990 and 2010”. But compare that to improvements in semiconductor transistor density in the same period, which were roughly doubling every two years (the so-called “Moore’s Law”, and a trend that extended for decades prior and after that period).
Second, new technologies and approaches are hard to come by - something more like prospecting for oil. Going from “promising start” to “commercially useful” is not a reliable and repeatable process. The chemistries and structures have to be stable and safe in normal environments, at normal temperatures, over reasonably long periods of time. This is a hard problem, based on my understanding.
So I’m just suspicious of claims about batteries somehow solving the problems inherent in solar and wind power. The improvements need to be much more dramatic in a much shorter timeframe than I think is possible.
Put me, then, firmly in the nuclear is the only realistic option camp…
Can't disagree with any of this I'm afraid. I'm a fan of Noah Smith in general but his stuff about batteries seems like a pipe dream. I hope you're wrong but I doubt it.
Liquid fuels and very energy dense which makes them the best option for transportation fuels when you have to take your fuel with you. Converting solar into a liquid fuel might make a lot of sense.
“once the green economy scales up solar and wind power will be cheap. This might be right.”
But this is already right, is it not?
https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2021/02/Price-of-electricity-new-renewables-vs-new-fossil-no-geo-994x1536.png
Let’s not forget hydrogen fuel cells… automobile CO2 emissions are about half of traditional gas powered vehicles. Of course it does require natural gas, another hydrocarbon no-no.
There is actually a cure for obesity - look up the new drugs semaglutide and tirzepatide
If we keep subsidizing solar we will wind up with so much that in certain areas of the country the wholesale cost of electricity during the middle of the day will be zero. The price will then skyrocket as the day progresses into evening. This sort of thing is already happening with wind - subsidized wind power in the Texas Panhandle often has a negative price in the middle of the night.
We have not yet gotten around to focusing our ideas and institutions on cost effective ways to producing and distributing energy in ways that do not emit CO2 into the atmosphere. A tax would be the best way, combined with removing regulatory obstacles to smart grids, nuclear and geothermal, and of course research.
In principle I am agnostic about whether the next doubling of global per capita income will require doubling aggregate energy use.
https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/eu-physics-denial-has-come-home-to/comments
True conomic growth is completely correlated to energy use. The US peaked in energy consumption in 2007, and it has remained flat since that point in time. This is an economic growth starvation diet. To the extent that we are better off today than we were in 2007 is only because we have off-shored our own energy consumption to China, India, and other developing countries who produce our most energy intensive consumer goods for us.
Nuclear is the only realistic option at this point in time if we are going to eliminate the use of fossil fuels by either fiat or their actual depletion. That we haven't done anything in 40 years on that front suggests nothing but bad news for the United States and Europe going forward. We will be poorer 10 years from now than we are today, and poorer still 10 years after that if we haven't increased our energy supplies and consumption.
Solar and wind generation will require a complete replacement of the power generation capital equipment on a 20-30 year cycle- the stuff just wears out. This cost factor is not included in any of the pie-in-the-sky cost calculations because we haven't yet reached that first rebuild point yet, but it will show up starting around 2025 going forward. Additionally, they won't be viable without a storage capacity in batteries that no one has included in the cost calculations for building out to zero CO2 emissions, and any cursory look at that cost makes both sources of power non-viable for baseload generation purposes- it is just far too expensive since batteries wear out, too, and must be replaced.
I suppose the other option is to outsource everything to China and India, but then CO2 emissions just increase at the same rate that they have for the last century. At some point the Chinese and the Indians will just let us starve in our grass huts since we won't be able buy their goods since we don't produce anything any longer.