
We Need an Energy Miracle (2015) - pidge
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/11/we-need-an-energy-miracle/407881/?single_page=true
======
Caveman_Coder
"There are many people working on storage—batteries are a form of storage, and
there’s a few others, like compressed air, hot metals. But it’s not at all
clear that we will get grid-scale economic storage."

Grid-scale storage is the key. Duke Energy is one of the leaders in this
effort, at least among the major utilities [1].

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15307767](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15307767)

------
Animats
And we got it. Wind power works, is cost effective, and scales well. Solar
power works, is cost effective, and scales well. Battery storage works, is
starting to be cost effective, and scales well. Fracking works, too, until
that level of reserves runs out.

Energy has moved down the priority list of problems.

~~~
That-one-thing
No, now I have trouble finding English sources and I need to go in a while.

But no wind power does not work in large scale in a electric system. The
problem is that you need to have a lot of extra power and power electronics to
stabilize the effect of wind power. It disturbs the frequency of the
electricity in the network and you have to balance it with other sources you
have complete control over to keep the power stable.

When the Swedish energy department made a study they found that we can't have
more than 10 TWh of wind power (7%)[0]. There is one study from one group that
says that we can have up to 30 TWh (21%)[2], but if we are realistic it's
probably in the middle. This is things my professors in wind power told us,
and they really like wind power.

Sorry the sources are in Swedish, but I really advice you to look into the
subject before calming that it's all perfect.

[0] [http://www.svk.se/siteassets/om-
oss/rapporter/20130313-integ...](http://www.svk.se/siteassets/om-
oss/rapporter/20130313-integrering-av-
vindkraft.pdf?_t_id=1B2M2Y8AsgTpgAmY7PhCfg==&_t_q=vindkraft&_t_tags=language:sv,siteid:40c776fe-7e5c-4838-841c-63d91e5a03c9&_t_ip=192.121.1.150&_t_hit.id=SVK_WebUI_Models_Media_OfficeDocument/_447e998b-e949-43da-
bc98-f33334691bb7&_t_hit.pos=2)

[1][http://fof.se/tidning/2012/7/tal-elnatet-mer-
vindkraft](http://fof.se/tidning/2012/7/tal-elnatet-mer-vindkraft) Lennart
Söders forskargrupp.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
Sweden has had more than 7% wind for a few years now, so we can safely say
it's higher than 7%.

There's actually a single giant windfarm due for completion in 2020 that on
its own will provide more than 8%.

There are some reasons to think solar and wind have physical limits and can't
provide 100% on their own (or even together) economically just as nuclear on
its own doesn't really make economic sense, but there's a long history of
groups predicting false limits based on strange assumptions.

~~~
That-one-thing
You are correct in that the first estimate my the energy department was wrong.
But the idea that it is all solved and that we can just build lots of it
without having to worry is not a good strategy for a society in my opinion.
Yes sometimes they sometimes make predictions that are wrong, but I still
think that we should listen mostly to scientific prediction than anything
else.

Yes and that the UK peaked at 28% is irrelevant ( EDIT: I used to harsh
wording, yes it's a bit relevant but there are still problems with applying
one solution to another place ) because they have different system with
different possibilities. You can't implement the same systems everywhere since
they have different conditions.

Maybe we can have almost exclusively power by wind in the future. But until
then I prefer to listen to scientists and hear what they have to say.

------
noncoml
All this cryptocurrenty craziness doesn't help either.

I don't understand how the HN crowd that is usually so pro-environment, is
also happy with the tons of wasted energy from crytptocurrency mining.

~~~
openfuture
It's still young technology and the energy efficiency will improve with the
lightning network or proof of stake or different concepts like filecoin.

The societal gain from these technologies is potentially very large and will
hopefully realign interests in the direction of saving the environment rather
than bailing out businesses.. But the most sane definition of money is
actually energy imo

Also comparing the energy cost of printing physical money with mining
cryptocurrencies is favorable to CC's iirc.

~~~
rtpg
Right now a single transaction on the bitcoin network uses as much energy as
powering 7 homes for a day.

There's infrastructure costs, but Visa's network doesn't need that much to
process a single POST request

~~~
F_r_k
Do you have a source on that ? It seems impressive !

~~~
noncoml
It got shared a bit further down the thread:

[https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-
consumption](https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption)

------
lozenge
A response: [https://thinkprogress.org/no-bill-gates-we-dont-need-
energy-...](https://thinkprogress.org/no-bill-gates-we-dont-need-energy-
miracles-to-solve-climate-change-60ac8fbb9e2e/)

> What is particularly unfortunate about Gates’ mistaken rhetoric is that it
> can disempower people and policymakers and pundits into thinking that
> individual or even government action is not the central weapon needed to win
> the climate fight and that our only hope is some long-term deus ex machina
> strategy to avoid catastrophic warming. Nothing could be worse than leaving
> people with the impression that humanity’s only hope is future miracles...

> What is particularly ironic about Gates’ mistaken energy-miracle-centered
> strategy, as I’ll discuss at the end, is that it is the exact opposite of
> the deployment-driven innovation strategy Gates himself used to make
> Microsoft a software giant and to make personal computers the “miracle” that
> Gates calls them today.

------
ZeroGravitas
The miracle will be society not being run by vested interests who maintain
dirty expensive energy sources for their own narrow benefit.

Personally, I've found Gates's public pronouncements unhelpful as they've
promoted this idea that the current tech is of no use when simple things like
replacing coal with natural gas can have large impacts.

------
nickhalfasleep
I wonder if storage could be offset with sufficient grid ties. Power could be
shared across the day/night side of the planet, from a sufficient number of
areas to avoid 100% cloud cover.

~~~
davedx
Yes, these are already being built. Interconnects are a large part of the
energy transition. In addition to day/night connections, there is also a plan
to connect desert regions of Tunisia to Europe via an undersea link, to take
advantage of CSP plants that will be built there.

Interconnections reduce the effects of renewable variability.

------
jmnicolas
Since we probably won't get an energy miracle, the sad truth is what we "need"
is an economic collapse that will set us back decades (centuries even).

------
alexasmyths
There are no miracles in tech.

We usually see things coming a long way off. We were burning coal just like
wood - and the entire hydrocarbon industry is a big refinement on 'coal
fires'.

Nuclear Energy has been vastly understudied in the last 30 years. There are so
many opportunities there, and the 'yield' is earth-shaking: 1000 years of
electricity.

Yes - I'm aware of the issues, but with the right approach, most of them,
possibly all of them can be mitigated.

Just with '1980's tech' \- and some institutional responsibility (A big 'ask',
I know) - we could wipe out climate change for a hefty, but not unreasonable
price tag. (FYI - a huge new component factored into costs is 'insurance' for
these plants, which is crazy expensive and hard to assess - in addition to
improvements - we can legislate and plan around these things).

At very least - we should be investing in research both in tech, but also in
operating modalities. The upside is too great to ignore.

------
eip
The military has been suppressing advanced energy tech for 70+ years in order
to maintain the stability of the global financial (slavery) system.

Decentralized energy production means loss of control.

~~~
alexasmyths
The military, particularly DARPA has been introducing tech into the world that
has utterly improved it for the better.

If I could be so bold: every piece of tech in your house depends in some way
on military R&D.

Heyzeus - you even owe 'canned food' to Napoleon's supply-chain R&D.

It's a surprisingly long list when you account for actual history, not just
the 20th century, which was huge.

~~~
eip
I never claimed otherwise. They have unlimited R&D budget and the ability to
kidnap scientists/inventors and steal their tech. They release tons of goodies
all the time. Just not advanced energy tech.

There are two reasons for this:

1\. The stability of the petrodollar global control grid is based on the
centralized production of energy. Any tech that would lead to widespread
decentralization is a threat. Power is power.

2\. People are too retarded and selfish to be trusted with unlimited energy.
They would inevitably split the crust of the earth and kill us all.

So until both of those things change you won't see permanent batteries, cheap
hydrogen from water, high efficiency solar, or any of the other energy tech
they are sitting on.

