A few weeks ago, I was a guest on the Canadian daily news podcast The Big Story, chatting with host Jordan Heath-Rawlings about the big fusion news from December, the public’s hunger for energy breakthroughs, and the energy revolution that’s going on before our very eyes while we get lost in sci-fi fantasies.
Near the end you touted geothermal as being "renewable" but is it? Isn't there a finite amount of heat inside the earth?
Same question goes for wind and tidal power, I think. If we consume kinetic energy from tides and winds, doesn't that make the tides lower and the winds a little bit weaker?
Yeah I imagine it's too small a delta to worry about, but am I wrong?
I'm sure the answer is something like: there is SO MUCH tidal power and geothermal power that our little turbines and taps have an infinitesimal effect.
I agree fusion is still a long way away from being a useful source of energy and will not be a solution for the climate change emerency but (and you know a but was coming),I think weshould continue to fund research into funsion energy because,in the longer term, it could be a viable alternative. Wind and solar are the obvious immediate solution to the current crisis but, in the needed amount to fully electrify the whole world, their physical footprint would be huge and there are significant areas where neither are great. Fusion hype is not helpful but fusion still has potential.
Dave, you answered all of the questions perfectly and with enthusiasm. I feel, in regards to Mr. Andersons' comment, that, lithium-ion batteries are the current storage of choice, such as the Tesla Power Wall; and the more companies produce, the cheaper they will become. Pumped storage is also another method, but one needs mountains or hills. Also, wind turbines or solar can produce hydrogen, from water, and then recombine it or burn it later when this storage technique is needed.
I am in complete agreement with your belief that fusion energy, promising as it is, will not benefit us in any sort of timely fashion.
I also agree that wind and solar are some of the cheapest forms of energy to produce these days. But since both of them are intermittent production, I think we really need to factor in some form of storage cost (electric, kinetic, thermal, gravity batteries, et al) to compare their cost with carbon or nuclear energy. Do you have any information on current energy storage costs? Perhaps a subject for a podcast.
I'd love an episode laying out the storage options/costs too.
According to another source I follow the storage costs are going to be highly location specific due to changes in things like wind/solar mix, availability of different storage, and very critically, "do you live somewhere cold." Understanding how that could play out in different areas would be interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quI_8xYSWYE <-- Engineering with Rosie. Estimates for what storage would cost in Australia for 60-90% renewables share to level it out and for them, it's not much. I live in housing Zone 5 New England and would expect it to be higher here just because we need more.
Near the end you touted geothermal as being "renewable" but is it? Isn't there a finite amount of heat inside the earth?
Same question goes for wind and tidal power, I think. If we consume kinetic energy from tides and winds, doesn't that make the tides lower and the winds a little bit weaker?
Yeah I imagine it's too small a delta to worry about, but am I wrong?
I've always vaguely wondered about that, Mark. Maybe I'll try to track down an expert who knows.
I'm sure the answer is something like: there is SO MUCH tidal power and geothermal power that our little turbines and taps have an infinitesimal effect.
I agree fusion is still a long way away from being a useful source of energy and will not be a solution for the climate change emerency but (and you know a but was coming),I think weshould continue to fund research into funsion energy because,in the longer term, it could be a viable alternative. Wind and solar are the obvious immediate solution to the current crisis but, in the needed amount to fully electrify the whole world, their physical footprint would be huge and there are significant areas where neither are great. Fusion hype is not helpful but fusion still has potential.
Yes, we already have that God-sized fusion reactor in the sky we call the sun.
All we have to do is put up panels and turbines to harvest a little fusion energy. Solar and wind are its energy receptors.
Let the plants take most of that fusion energy though. It'll be good to draw down all that CO2 again, and we'll need the oxygen.
Dave, you answered all of the questions perfectly and with enthusiasm. I feel, in regards to Mr. Andersons' comment, that, lithium-ion batteries are the current storage of choice, such as the Tesla Power Wall; and the more companies produce, the cheaper they will become. Pumped storage is also another method, but one needs mountains or hills. Also, wind turbines or solar can produce hydrogen, from water, and then recombine it or burn it later when this storage technique is needed.
Dave,
I am in complete agreement with your belief that fusion energy, promising as it is, will not benefit us in any sort of timely fashion.
I also agree that wind and solar are some of the cheapest forms of energy to produce these days. But since both of them are intermittent production, I think we really need to factor in some form of storage cost (electric, kinetic, thermal, gravity batteries, et al) to compare their cost with carbon or nuclear energy. Do you have any information on current energy storage costs? Perhaps a subject for a podcast.
Please keep up the good work.
I'd love an episode laying out the storage options/costs too.
According to another source I follow the storage costs are going to be highly location specific due to changes in things like wind/solar mix, availability of different storage, and very critically, "do you live somewhere cold." Understanding how that could play out in different areas would be interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quI_8xYSWYE <-- Engineering with Rosie. Estimates for what storage would cost in Australia for 60-90% renewables share to level it out and for them, it's not much. I live in housing Zone 5 New England and would expect it to be higher here just because we need more.