this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2024
644 points (69.5% liked)
Memes
45737 readers
451 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
We're reaching the point where discussing cost in regard to the energy crisis makes us look like fucking idiots.
Imagine what kids reading the history books are going to think of these discussions.
And 10 years isn't that long really. If someone said we could use no fossil fuels in energy generation in 10 years time that doesn't sound long at all.
Cost is a proxy for productivity and resources. So while it is stupid to say that the energy transition is too expensive, shouldn't we rather invest our productivity and resources into a faster and cheaper solution? Drawing focus away from renewables is dangerous as others have mentioned, because it is too late to reach our goals with nuclear.
No I don't think so. Nuclear is super effective and consistent, especially for large setups.
Using renewables while we get our nuclear up makes complete sense. And subsidising nuclear with renewables after that also makes sense.
But the technology to rely entirely on renewables isn't really there either.
Yes, it is.
https://books.google.com/books/about/No_Miracles_Needed.html?id=aVKmEAAAQBAJ&source=kp_book_description
This is a book by a professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering that goes into the details. We don't need nuclear. All the tech is there.
We sure should. Do tell of this this faster, cheaper solution that is also adequate to meet all of our needs.
Renewables
Really gives me the warm fuzzies when someone looks at changes to physical systems over time then draws a trend line into the future indefinitely without any citations or discussion of plausibility for the part they drew on.
Which part specifically do you take issue with? It's a bounded timeframe with over 60 references. We're already 4 years into their predicted trends and on track so it seems like they are into something.
All the charts on page 15. The ones where they extrapolate exponential improvement for a decade while only citing themselves. Their prediction is 15% annually for storage cost improvements in Li-ion batteries which they call 'conservative'
Let us check if their souce updated. $139 for 2023? That isn't a 15% decrease since 2019's $156, let alone year over year since then, which would be under $90. In spite of last year's drop that is still more than the 2021 price of $132. I don't know what 'on track' means to you but it must be something different than it means to me.
Thank you, appreciate you showing specifically what your issue is. I agree the timeline for the battery costs hasn't worked out exactly because of some anomalies over the last year or two but the trend is sharply down again. So it seems like we are on track to achieve a cost of around $90 by 2025 now rather than 2024 at least according to Goldman Sachs.
If your issue is with the exact timeline, I say that's fair enough, but being off by a year with battery costs isn't too bad I don't think. Of course as with all forecasting we'll have to see exactly how it pans out in reality but it's a pretty big risk if you want to start building a nuclear reactor now, factoring in construction time plus payback period.
Why do they do this? The battery companies would want compensation, too!