Rendered at 17:59:46 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
KellyCriterion 6 hours ago [-]
Prices of battery will continue to fall, while research for battery & storage is still a tiny fraction of all (implicit) subsidies for fossil fuel "research & processing" and its whole ecosystem:
Imagine only a smart part of the fraction to pay oil companies, to build the streets, all the profs at university for "ICE related" tech from the last 60 years, all the educated engineers, all the lobby institutions etc - and pour this into EE & battery research -> where could we be today?
If we would have invested a small part, the world would be quite different! (and this world, Iran war wont happen these days)
rayiner 6 hours ago [-]
> magine only a smart part of the fraction to pay oil companies, to build the streets, all the profs at university for "ICE related" tech from the last 60 years, all the educated engineers, all the lobby institutions etc - and pour this into EE & battery research -> where could we be today?
There is a more straightforward counterfactual. If the hippies had just sat the fuck down and the developed countries had nuclearized their grid the way France did, CO2 emissions would be so much lower that we could afford to have the entire developing world increase its CO2 emissions up to the French level while remaining within the same total global emissions level as today. And we would have had a huge runway for further decarbonizing our economies because we could have done all that by the 1980s like France did.
KellyCriterion 3 hours ago [-]
Even then nuclear would be behind renewables etc. - costs of renewables are aleady falling exponentially, and this under this "underfunded research regime"
I can remember one guy in the small village I grew up: He put solar on his roof already in 1991 - the people where laughing at him. (and back then you got nice state subsidies to do so). Today its a nobrainer - so for me its clear: It depends on the mindset of the society if those things are funded or not
notTooFarGone 9 hours ago [-]
Glad to see this crisis can result into a power plant 15-20 years from now.
But it takes a real energy supply crisis (and probably many resulting deaths) to overcome NIMBY and anti-nuclear sentiment. In the current situation: in the U.S. there is currently just minor price hike, in Asia there is potential for real crisis (in few months), in Africa it will be really bad (crop production failures - famine).
euroderf 6 hours ago [-]
The Dem platform could include 80% rebates for balcony solar. That'd put a dent in grid consumption stats.
ForHackernews 7 hours ago [-]
Either or both would be a great improvement over burning more coal.
stinkbeetle 8 hours ago [-]
I've been hearing "nuclear should have been done 15-20 years ago" for 30 years at this point. Coal was dead 20 years ago killed by solar and wind too, turns out that we'll be lucky if we have passed peak coal today! And peak carbon is still a fever dream.
No, it's time for the anti-nuclear crowd to sit things out from now on. They've been continuously wrong for the past 50 years, the world should never have listened to any of them.
Starman_Jones 4 hours ago [-]
Nuclear is too expensive in ways that are effectively fixed costs. Solar is the cheapest form of power available on the market. I agree that we should have pushed nuclear 50, 40, 30, and 20 years ago, but now you’re asking the American people to pay more because something was the right call in the 90’s.
ksaj 10 hours ago [-]
Nuclear, Hydro and Solar. The idea of "clean coal" is one of the strangest bits of energy propaganda I've ever heard from a US president.
metalman 9 hours ago [-]
Not happening, solar, batteries, wind, geothermal, and other renewables have a lead that cant be taken with wild hype and mumble logic.
Hard work, and lots of it is the only hope for an American renaissance.
Saline9515 9 hours ago [-]
Batteries are improving but are there yet, for country-scale use.
Imagine only a smart part of the fraction to pay oil companies, to build the streets, all the profs at university for "ICE related" tech from the last 60 years, all the educated engineers, all the lobby institutions etc - and pour this into EE & battery research -> where could we be today?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_consp...
If we would have invested a small part, the world would be quite different! (and this world, Iran war wont happen these days)
There is a more straightforward counterfactual. If the hippies had just sat the fuck down and the developed countries had nuclearized their grid the way France did, CO2 emissions would be so much lower that we could afford to have the entire developing world increase its CO2 emissions up to the French level while remaining within the same total global emissions level as today. And we would have had a huge runway for further decarbonizing our economies because we could have done all that by the 1980s like France did.
I can remember one guy in the small village I grew up: He put solar on his roof already in 1991 - the people where laughing at him. (and back then you got nice state subsidies to do so). Today its a nobrainer - so for me its clear: It depends on the mindset of the society if those things are funded or not
Or another Gigawatt solar + batteries this year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#Messme...
But it takes a real energy supply crisis (and probably many resulting deaths) to overcome NIMBY and anti-nuclear sentiment. In the current situation: in the U.S. there is currently just minor price hike, in Asia there is potential for real crisis (in few months), in Africa it will be really bad (crop production failures - famine).
No, it's time for the anti-nuclear crowd to sit things out from now on. They've been continuously wrong for the past 50 years, the world should never have listened to any of them.