|
Post by The Astronomer on Apr 6, 2017 5:20:16 GMT
I'm surprised how many people vote for fossil fuel. These are probably going for realistic/pessimistic cases. I guess we should also focus on active carbon traps too. It was already trapped so well as a fossil fuel I am curious how long it will be before humanity confronts fossil fuel use in a serious enough way to stem its use, and what the major driver will be (environmental impact, fuel scarcity, foresight)? Unless we can prevent anti-intellectuals from climb into the president chair, we can't stop them from reviving the fossil fuel companies! Educate some more, and throw a lot of money into environmental zone.
|
|
|
Post by acrosome on Apr 11, 2017 5:40:50 GMT
If unsubsidized utility-scale PV were truly innately that much cheaper than natural gas right now then investors should be flocking to PV. And they aren't. We're sure as hell still outproducing natural gas powerstations over PV... Which is a shame. So what gives? Granted, the front-end capital requirements are still strikingly higher for PV, so is it just the amount of capital at risk that's inhibiting investment? Or is there something hinkey with that study? I'm surprised how many people vote for fossil fuel. These are probably going for realistic/pessimistic cases. I guess we should also focus on active carbon traps too. So... people are asked to make reasonable predictions about the near future and you're criticizing them for being too realistic? Sir, I admire your chutzpah. Here, have a THUMBS UP.
|
|
|
Post by subunit on Apr 11, 2017 5:44:42 GMT
I am curious how long it will be before humanity confronts fossil fuel use in a serious enough way to stem its use, and what the major driver will be (environmental impact, fuel scarcity, foresight)? ~2035, drought. Most BAU scenarios coming out of NCAR for the last 10 years have said the same thing- we keep burning, the great plains will be perma-dustbowled by 2035.
|
|
|
Post by tuskerkerman on Apr 16, 2017 18:35:32 GMT
If the NRC fucks off into oblivion, we could take a serious look into Molten Salt Reactors.
|
|
|
Post by Pttg on Apr 16, 2017 19:30:03 GMT
If the NRC fucks off into oblivion, we could take a serious look into Molten Salt Reactors. Energy density is irrelevant for power grid supplies. Cost-efficiency is really the only metric, once you've amortized rare costs (like repair of catastrophies). The future of nuclear is probably more like a pebble bed -- which is already being fueled. Stable, air-cooled, and exceedingly difficult to weaponize. MSRs are great in space, but people here generally seem to confuse "useful for spaceships that have to deal with delta-v and armor limitations" and "useful on a stationary planet that isn't generally being shot at, but has air happen to it."
|
|
|
Post by newageofpower on Apr 16, 2017 20:07:17 GMT
MSRs are likely to be useful for breeder setups to turn depleted uranium and reactor waste into fuel. For the vast majority of commercial power, pebble beds are the future - safe, reasonably efficient, difficult to weaponize.
|
|
|
Post by dwwolf on Apr 21, 2017 10:08:30 GMT
Finally bothered too look up the data. Current levelized costs put wind as the cheapest per kWh. Solar is next. Then natural gas, then coal, then biomass, community solar, and rooftop solar, and then it's nuclear power. www.lazard.com/media/438038/levelized-cost-of-energy-v100.pdfGood thing we don't make policy from internet polls. Before you ask, that doesn't include subsidies or a carbon tax. How are levelised costs calculated? Do they include storage?
|
|
|
Post by Pttg on Apr 21, 2017 18:58:29 GMT
If unsubsidized utility-scale PV were truly innately that much cheaper than natural gas right now then investors should be flocking to PV. And they aren't. We're sure as hell still outproducing natural gas powerstations over PV... Which is a shame. So what gives? Granted, the front-end capital requirements are still strikingly higher for PV, so is it just the amount of capital at risk that's inhibiting investment? Or is there something hinkey with that study? Your data's old. The majority of new power investment is renewable. Levelized costs include the capital expenses and other initial costs, plus to total cost of fuel, as well as maintenance. The costs are then divided by the total output over the lifetime of the plant. Sometimes it includes cleanup costs; such costs are fairly low on a per-Mwh level, so it's not normally important from an economic perspective. They don't normally include storage because storage doesn't have a consistent cost per-Mwh. It's mainly a cost per Mw capacity, and then a separate per Mwh cost in and out of storage.
|
|
|
Post by tuskerkerman on May 13, 2017 4:11:56 GMT
If the NRC fucks off into oblivion, we could take a serious look into Molten Salt Reactors. Energy density is irrelevant for power grid supplies. Cost-efficiency is really the only metric, once you've amortized rare costs (like repair of catastrophies). The future of nuclear is probably more like a pebble bed -- which is already being fueled. Stable, air-cooled, and exceedingly difficult to weaponize. MSRs are great in space, but people here generally seem to confuse "useful for spaceships that have to deal with delta-v and armor limitations" and "useful on a stationary planet that isn't generally being shot at, but has air happen to it." yeah thorium is a problematic byproduct of rare earth mining, uranium is about as common as platinum. The fact that we are not currently using thorium breeder reactors is a testament to the stupidity of regulatory shenanigans.
|
|