# A world on 100% renewable energy. Is it feasible using the following method : **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [November 18, 2017, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-world-on-100-renewable-energy-is-it-feasible-using-the-following-method/801946 "2017-11-18T01:49:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-world-on-100-renewable-energy-is-it-feasible-using-the-following-method/801946/61 "2017-11-20T17:04:22Z")
> [@SamuelA](#): > > You accuse me of cherry picking. But in reality, the problem is you clearly haven’t even read anything on this subject in years. I’ve accused you of this because that’s exactly what you’ve done. To this point, I wouldn’t have needed to have kept up with solar (though you are wrong…I have kept up, though I’m no expert). Everything you’ve asserted is something anyone SHOULD know would not be ‘feasible’ by any definition of that term. Thing is, had you said is it POSSIBLE, you wouldn’t have gotten the pushback you’ve gotten. Well, had you been willing to do more than attempt to belittle anyone who disagreed with you and then tossed up either fluff pieces or cherry-picked data to support your obviously shakey positions while attempting to handwave away objections as either coming from people who don’t know anything or simply can’t see that automation will solve all issues. > [@](#): > > Look at that hockey stick graph there. How does the shape of this curve fit within your hypothesis? No doubt you’ll point out that the totals are still around 1% of global energy…but with this kind of power law growth, that won’t last for very long. Solar is the cheapest form of energy generation in the entire world, except for hydro, and hydro is a geography limited resource. Uhuh. :dubious: So, it’s the cheapest form of energy (based on your cherry-picked data), and China is the leader. What’s the percentage of solar verse every other type in China? Why are the Chinese bothering to build anything else except solar if this is going to be the trend? Surely the Chinese would take advantage of those great prices and we’d see your growth taking place there, no? The Chinese have never shied away from mega-projects, so if solar was REALLY what you claim we’d see China building not only the plants but the batteries or other storage systems, especially since in the last 5 years environmental damage due to coal plants has become a huge issue there, with air quality literally off the scale in many Chinese cities. This is at the same time that China has built up its own home-grown car industry, so you’d think that solar power and electric cars would be exploding in China. And they are…it’s just that they are exploding at a time when everything else is exploding too, and they are basically just a drop in the very large bucket that is China’s need for power and personal transport. Take off the rose-colored glasses and really take a realist look at this. Solar is definitely on the rise, it’s dropped in price substantially (I just put in a solar system at my house 2 years ago and am waiting on a Tesla Powerwall to further leverage the system…and it’s a MUCH better system than the one I had 10 years ago, even without the Powerwall). But you have to look at it realistically, and you aren’t seemingly willing to do so. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-world-on-100-renewable-energy-is-it-feasible-using-the-following-method/801946/62 "2017-11-20T17:09:37Z")
That reaction takes a kJ per gram, assuming perfect efficiency and that doesn’t include the energy for electrolysis of water … besides, once we have hydrogen gas, we’re good to go, that stuff burns really well, explosively even … not to mention that one of the bigger problems with fossil fuels is that capital equipment and pipelines aren’t worth a shit, leaky son-of-a-bitches … “while solar PV plants can be installed with minimal skill and labor if packaged correctly” … hahaha … I’m guessing you’ve never poured out a 34 ton cement mixer before … why would you think a supervising commercial electrician is a minimal skilled position? … or are you suggesting we hire high school students to wire up our mega-Watt facilities? … I still want to know how many thousands of square miles of PV’s we’ll need to replace the 100 quintillion Joules the USA produces every year … that’s 2 sextillion Joules for the whole world … 10[sup]14[/sup] Watts … is there even enough aluminum to string the wire? … ---
**Author:** ![SamuelA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@SamuelA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SamuelA)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-world-on-100-renewable-energy-is-it-feasible-using-the-following-method/801946/63 "2017-11-20T17:18:19Z")
> [@XT](#): > > I’ve accused you of this because that’s exactly what you’ve done. To this point, I wouldn’t have needed to have kept up with solar (though you are wrong…I have kept up, though I’m no expert). Everything you’ve asserted is something anyone SHOULD know would not be ‘feasible’ by any definition of that term. > > Thing is, had you said is it POSSIBLE, you wouldn’t have gotten the pushback you’ve gotten. Well, had you been willing to do more than attempt to belittle anyone who disagreed with you and then tossed up either fluff pieces or cherry-picked data to support your obviously shakey positions while attempting to handwave away objections as either coming from people who don’t know anything or simply can’t see that automation will solve all issues. > > Uhuh. :dubious: So, it’s the cheapest form of energy (based on your cherry-picked data), and China is the leader. What’s the percentage of solar verse every other type in China? Why are the Chinese bothering to build anything else except solar if this is going to be the trend? Surely the Chinese would take advantage of those great prices and we’d see your growth taking place there, no? The Chinese have never shied away from mega-projects, so if solar was REALLY what you claim we’d see China building not only the plants but the batteries or other storage systems, especially since in the last 5 years environmental damage due to coal plants has become a huge issue there, with air quality literally off the scale in many Chinese cities. This is at the same time that China has built up its own home-grown car industry, so you’d think that solar power and electric cars would be exploding in China. > > And they are…it’s just that they are exploding at a time when everything else is exploding too, and they are basically just a drop in the very large bucket that is China’s need for power and personal transport. > > Take off the rose-colored glasses and really take a realist look at this. Solar is definitely on the rise, it’s dropped in price substantially (I just put in a solar system at my house 2 years ago and am waiting on a Tesla Powerwall to further leverage the system…and it’s a MUCH better system than the one I had 10 years ago, even without the Powerwall). But you have to look at it realistically, and you aren’t seemingly willing to do so. [https://electrek.co/2017/10/19/china-breaking-all-solar-power-records-aiming-for-50gw-in-2017/](https://electrek.co/2017/10/19/china-breaking-all-solar-power-records-aiming-for-50gw-in-2017/) And what you’re talking about is also based on wrong information. > **[China Cancels 103 Coal Plants, Mindful of Smog and Wasted Capacity (Published...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/world/asia/china-coal-power-plants-pollution.html)** > > The dropped projects include dozens already under construction, even though existing plants can already generate far more power than the country needs. TLDR, the Chinese central government is tired of excess pollution, so they have decided to basically ban new coal plants and shutter the least efficient older ones. But the wheels of bureaucracy have moved slowly, so Provincial governments have rushed to get permits for more plants than they need. In summary, the reason you’re totally off base is no other source of energy has this kind of price movement. Coal plants haven’t gone from costing $1 a watt to $0.50 cents a watt to $0.25 a watt in 5 years. And solar is not finished reducing in price : I cited in a much earlier post, when explaining why I think you are so badly misinformed, a form of solar cell that doesn’t need silicon wafers or rare earths at all. (and is competitive in efficiency). And you scoff at my [mentions of automated equipment](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3FYBCexU-g) to make these panels by the square kilometer : which is a level of efficiency the producers are beginning to reach today. You’ve been listening to too much right wing radio rants. There’s a false meme going around that the reason solar cells from China are so cheap is the Chinese government is actually paying the difference in cost between the true manufacturing cost and the market sale prices, and is thus dumping them on the market. There’s no evidence for this. So what makes your assumptions wrong is the price movement. Governments and industry are simply lagging behind it : that hockey stick curve is a result of them gradually catching up to the new reality. Remember how long it took between when consumers and high tech firms had near paperless offices and when governments finally caught up? Remember how smartphones went from 1% of the market in 2006 to almost 100%? Good ideas that are actually cheaper tend to dominate like that. ---
**Author:** ![SamuelA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@SamuelA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SamuelA)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-world-on-100-renewable-energy-is-it-feasible-using-the-following-method/801946/64 "2017-11-20T17:23:25Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > That reaction takes a kJ per gram, assuming perfect efficiency and that doesn’t include the energy for electrolysis of water … besides, once we have hydrogen gas, we’re good to go, that stuff burns really well, explosively even … not to mention that one of the bigger problems with fossil fuels is that capital equipment and pipelines aren’t worth a shit, leaky son-of-a-bitches … > > “while solar PV plants can be installed with minimal skill and labor if packaged correctly” … hahaha … I’m guessing you’ve never poured out a 34 ton cement mixer before … why would you think a supervising commercial electrician is a minimal skilled position? … or are you suggesting we hire high school students to wire up our mega-Watt facilities? … > > I still want to know how many thousands of square miles of PV’s we’ll need to replace the 100 quintillion Joules the USA produces every year … that’s 2 sextillion Joules for the whole world … > > 10[sup]14[/sup] Watts … is there even enough aluminum to string the wire? … [10,000 square](https://www.inverse.com/article/34239-how-many-solar-panels-to-power-the-usa)miles. You could package them into modules where it’s just plug and play. At this scale, there would be a crew that would use a GPS/laser guided system to install the footings, basically driving up and down each row with a robotic machine that drills and pours the concrete and installs the anchors for each footing. A later crew, probably using a truck with robotic waldos, would actually unpack each module. The modules would bolt to each other, and the DC disconnects would be electronically driven inside the firmware of each module. The module is the inverter + DC disconnect + a smart data wire. So when you plug the wires into each other, the modules talk to each other and only if all conditions are met do they energize themselves, removing any need for electrician labor. The main junction panels that all the modules tie to is the same way. It’s built as a module, with internal smarts, and only if all conditions are met does it power up and activate it’s medium voltage output. Same with prebuilt substations. Ironically, everything I just said is already in a Tesla. Nothing sci fi about it. ---
**Author:** ![Lucas\_Jackson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lucas_jackson/32/303_2.png) [@Lucas\_Jackson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lucas_Jackson)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-world-on-100-renewable-energy-is-it-feasible-using-the-following-method/801946/65 "2017-11-20T17:35:02Z")
So your point is that it’s so trivially easy that someone else should go do it? As I pointed out earlier the biggest hurdle is getting someone to volunteer their time and money to exploring this option. Let me ask, if it’s so easy and obvious what have you done to start the ball rolling? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-world-on-100-renewable-energy-is-it-feasible-using-the-following-method/801946/66 "2017-11-20T17:44:41Z")
> [@SamuelA](#): > > And what you’re talking about is also based on wrong information. Um, no, I’m not. I mentioned the pollution problem, for one thing. However, your article from January of this year…how many of those coal plants have actually been canceled? [Here](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/01/climate/china-energy-companies-coal-plants-climate-change.html) is an article, ironically, from the NYT as well, in July: > [@](#): > > When China halted plans for more than 100 new coal-fired power plants this year, even as President Trump vowed to “bring back coal” in America, the contrast seemed to confirm Beijing’s new role as a leader in the fight against climate change. > > But new data on the world’s biggest developers of coal-fired power plants paints a very different picture: China’s energy companies will make up nearly half of the new coal generation expected to go online in the next decade. > > These Chinese corporations are building or planning to build more than 700 new coal plants at home and around the world, some in countries that today burn little or no coal, according to tallies compiled by Urgewald, an environmental group based in Berlin. Many of the plants are in China, but by capacity, roughly a fifth of these new coal power stations are in other countries. 😛 See what I mean about you cherry picking data? > [@](#): > > In summary, the reason you’re totally off base is no other source of energy has this kind of price movement. Coal plants haven’t gone from costing $1 a watt to $0.50 cents a watt to $0.25 a watt in 5 years. And solar is not finished reducing in price : I cited in a much earlier post, when explaining why I think you are so badly misinformed, a form of solar cell that doesn’t need silicon wafers or rare earths at all. (and is competitive in efficiency). So, we should see a major trend towards solar happening. And we are seeing growth in solar, no doubt…but not the sort of explosive growth that such numbers would really indicate. Why? > [@](#): > > And you scoff at my mentions of automated equipment to make these panels by the square kilometer : which is a level of efficiency the producers are beginning to reach today. I didn’t actually say anything about automation, certainly didn’t say that automation couldn’t make panels. The thing is, it’s not just an automation issue, or just building the panels. Unless you are building the panels out of dragon wishes and unicorn dreams you need the raw materials, let alone the infrastructure to support it, etc etc. Then you need the folks to install it and maintain it. None of these are insurmountable projects, but building a 100 square mile solar farm is going to be a mammoth undertaking that won’t work because our grid system can’t support it to distribute across a continent-sized country like the US. It’s not just about building some panels with robots. But, really, if it was ‘feasible’, why hasn’t China started plans to do so? I mean, they have plans on the drawing board for all sorts of crazy crap…a rail link between China and the US, for instance, or Beijing to London, or a huge tunnel system to bring water from Tibet to Northern China. Yet I haven’t seen even a hint of plans to do what you are proposing in your OP. Seems like if it was the no-brainer you are claiming the Chinese would be doing it. > [@](#): > > You’ve been listening to too much right wing radio rants. 😛 The most right wing site I frequent is CNN. Seriously, this is always your fall back it seems. > [@](#): > > There’s a false meme going around that the reason solar cells from China are so cheap is the Chinese government is actually paying the difference in cost between the true manufacturing cost and the market sale prices, and is thus dumping them on the market. There’s no evidence for this. Good grief…where do you get this stuff? Literally the first [link](https://hbr.org/2013/04/how-chinese-subsidies-changed): > [@](#): > > Last week, LDK Solar, a struggling Chinese manufacturer of solar wafers and panels, announced that it had missed $24 million in bond payments. This news followed the bankruptcy in March of Wuxi Suntech, the main operating subsidiary of the world’s largest maker of solar panels, after it defaulted on a $541 million bond payment. > > It is no coincidence that this upheaval in the Chinese solar industry is occurring at a time when the central government’s subsidies that had financed the industry’s explosive expansion have declined even as problems in the global solar-panel market have soared. > > Since 2008, through government subsidies, the manufacturing capacity of China’s solar-panel industry grew tenfold, leading to a vast global oversupply. A surge in exports of Chinese panels depressed world prices by 75%. In 2012, China’s top six solar companies had debt ratios of over 80%. Our research showed that without subsidies, these companies would be bankrupt. If the Chinese government sticks to its decision to stop funding unprofitable solar-panel manufacturers and support a revamping of the industry, more bankruptcies and restructurings are sure to follow. This isn’t even a secret. It’s actually part of China’s offical plan. And now, with Xi’s one road one belt initiative China is massively subsidizing all sorts of infrastructure projects directly through government funding, and this includes solar. It’s ironic that someone who keeps claiming I haven’t kept up could actually assert something like this, when it would have taken you seconds to confirm it through non-right wing sources. Hell, there are several links about this from the NYT, which you used as a source earlier. 😛 > [@](#): > > So what makes your assumptions wrong is the price movement. Governments and industry are simply lagging behind it : that hockey stick curve is a result of them gradually catching up to the new reality. Remember how long it took between when consumers and high tech firms had near paperless offices and when governments finally caught up? Remember how smartphones went from 1% of the market in 2006 to almost 100%? Oh, I agree that technologies can rapidly be shifted with a large technological breakthrough, especially when driven by the public. I just don’t see your 100% solar vision happening. This isn’t to say that solar won’t be a valued part of the mix, but realistically solar MIGHT get to 20% of the worlds power production on the time scale you are talking about (i.e. 30 years). And that’s not counting all the other things you were wanting to happen at the same time, like a 100% turn over of vehicles to AEV instead of ICE. > [@](#): > > Good ideas that are actually cheaper tend to dominate like that. Absolutely. I’m a huge fan of the free market. Even in the not so free market of China, where the government can simply dictate stuff like the mega project you are envisioning, however, it’s not happening. You might want to take a step back and consider why that is, if your other assumptions and assertiosn are true. ---
**Author:** ![SamuelA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@SamuelA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SamuelA)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-world-on-100-renewable-energy-is-it-feasible-using-the-following-method/801946/67 "2017-11-20T17:45:42Z")
> [@Lucas\_Jackson](#): > > So your point is that it’s so trivially easy that someone else should go do it? As I pointed out earlier the biggest hurdle is getting someone to volunteer their time and money to exploring this option. > > Let me ask, if it’s so easy and obvious what have you done to start the ball rolling? It’s easy and obvious for a society with a little bit better automation than we have and trillions of dollars and an effort by millions of people. I’m just saying that at scale it’s a straightforward solution, well within the tech base of our civilization, and we do have an option other than sweltering under the combined smoke of all our fossil fuel sources or having a weekly nuclear meltdown because we rush built 10,000+ fission reactors. Obviously, my individual effort makes no difference, any more than 1 vote mattered in the last presidential election… ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-world-on-100-renewable-energy-is-it-feasible-using-the-following-method/801946/68 "2017-11-20T18:00:27Z")
> [@SamuelA](#): > > It’s easy and obvious for a society with a little bit better automation than we have and trillions of dollars and an effort by millions of people. I’m just saying that at scale it’s a straightforward solution, well within the tech base of our civilization, and we do have an option other than sweltering under the combined smoke of all our fossil fuel sources or having a weekly nuclear meltdown because we rush built 10,000+ fission reactors. > > Obviously, my individual effort makes no difference, any more than 1 vote mattered in the last presidential election… Um…today, worldwide, there are only 450 nuclear power plants (accounting for over 11% of the total world’s energy today), and we measure meltdowns of plants in years or decades. You might want to check your maths…for an engineer, you don’t seem able to do stuff with those number thingies very well. 😛 We won’t even talk about how much safer the next gen (Gen 4, say) power plants are from the older ones that generally are in the news when they get hit by stupidity or 1000 year natural disasters that they weren’t engineered for… It’s funny, since you seem genuinely wanting to help the environment, that not only do you simply blow off what is probably the best means of dealing with CO2 emissions, but you propose a series of mega-engineering initiatives that are not only unrealistic but would actually cause a lot more harm to the environment in the short and medium term. ---
**Author:** ![SamuelA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@SamuelA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SamuelA)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-world-on-100-renewable-energy-is-it-feasible-using-the-following-method/801946/69 "2017-11-20T18:03:45Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Um…today, worldwide, there are only 450 nuclear power plants (accounting for over 11% of the total world’s energy today), and we measure meltdowns of plants in years or decades. You might want to check your maths…for an engineer, you don’t seem able to do stuff with those number thingies very well. 😛 > > It’s funny, since you seem genuinely wanting to help the environment, that not only do you simply blow off what is probably the best means of dealing with CO2 emissions, but you propose a series of mega-engineering initiatives that are not only unrealistic but would actually cause a lot more harm to the environment in the short and medium term. Ok that insult just pisses me off. Especially when it’s not deserved. The problem with fission reactors is they are a poor target for optimization because of high liability and low production volumes of components. But you wouldn’t understand that. It makes them a fundamentally bad idea at scale. And you badly underestimate how many reactors you’d need. 10k is about right. I mean it’s right there in the numbers you quoted. You need enough to go from 11% to 100% for electricity (so multiply by 10…), and then only about half of energy consumed worldwide is in the form of electricity, the rest is vehicle fuel (so multiply by 2…), and then synthetic fuel, which is needed for high performance vehicles\*, means energy losses of about 90%, so multiply about 5% by 10… You end up with the total number of nuclear reactors needed being about 15,000. Out of every reactor ever built, 1 in 100 has melted down. So no, my estimate of a meltdown every week is only a little exaggerated. It would feel like it was weekly. \*airplanes and rockets, it is simply impossible to use anything else but high density chemical fuels. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-world-on-100-renewable-energy-is-it-feasible-using-the-following-method/801946/70 "2017-11-20T18:14:34Z")
Is **XT** arguing for a 100% nuclear solution? I don’t see that. It’s not a good 100% solution. Neither is solar. But it’s a good baseload solution. Which solar is not. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-world-on-100-renewable-energy-is-it-feasible-using-the-following-method/801946/71 "2017-11-20T18:28:01Z")
> [@SamuelA](#): > > Out of every reactor ever built, 1 in 100 has melted down. I would like to see a cite for this. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![SamuelA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@SamuelA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SamuelA)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-world-on-100-renewable-energy-is-it-feasible-using-the-following-method/801946/72 "2017-11-20T18:43:54Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I would like to see a cite for this. > > Regards, > Shodan Sure. It was said by Bill Nye, but let’s just go [right to the data and check for ourselves](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents#Nuclear_meltdown). Let’s see…one…two…three…oh, Fukishima is 3…6. 6 civilian power reactors have melted down. Out of 440 + however many are shut down. Seems legit, looks to be about 1%. That’s the real, empirically tested number. Not the “1 in a billion years” numbers the companies who design nuclear reactors claim. As you can see by the next paragraph, military reactors have vastly higher incident rates, which if we were rush building these things as an emergency response to climate change, would be closer to the risk curve we’d see. The problem with optimizing that number is it simultaneously means you can’t reduce costs of reactors. You can’t qualify new components without a lot of expensive testing and you certainly can’t cost save. So already, nuclear is dead, [it’s far too expensive compared to alternatives.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#Lazard_.282017.29) ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-world-on-100-renewable-energy-is-it-feasible-using-the-following-method/801946/73 "2017-11-20T19:13:15Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > Is **XT** arguing for a 100% nuclear solution? I don’t see that. It’s not a good 100% solution. Neither is solar. But it’s a good baseload solution. Which solar is not. No, I have never said we needed a 100% anything solution, including nuclear. I have always favored a mix of technologies where they make the most sense. In some cases, wind or solar make the most sense. In some geothermal or hydro. In some nuclear makes the most sense. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-world-on-100-renewable-energy-is-it-feasible-using-the-following-method/801946/74 "2017-11-20T19:26:58Z")
And thus set the outcome goal via a carbon tax or whatever, and let the market settle on the best solution. Any simplistic solution any of us will propose is going to be wrong. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-world-on-100-renewable-energy-is-it-feasible-using-the-following-method/801946/75 "2017-11-20T19:28:40Z")
> [@SamuelA](#): > > Ok that insult just pisses me off. Especially when it’s not deserved. The problem with fission reactors is they are a poor target for optimization because of high liability and low production volumes of components. But you wouldn’t understand that. It makes them a fundamentally bad idea at scale. How would you know if I’d understand it or not? You know nothing about my background or what I do or don’t know. All you do is toss insults, ironically enough, considering you jump in with accusations I’m insulting you. > [@](#): > > And you badly underestimate how many reactors you’d need. 10k is about right. I mean it’s right there in the numbers you quoted. You need enough to go from 11% to 100% for electricity (so multiply by 10…), and then only about half of energy consumed worldwide is in the form of electricity, the rest is vehicle fuel (so multiply by 2…), and then synthetic fuel, which is needed for high performance vehicles\*, means energy losses of about 90%, so multiply about 5% by 10… > > You end up with the total number of nuclear reactors needed being about 15,000. There are currently 449 production nuclear reactors that comprise around 11% of the total worldwide power generation. Many if not most are older, gen 2 or gen 3 reactors. Many aren’t working at full capacity. Even if we assume they all are, let’s look at those numbers. 449 comprising 11% would roughly mean that you’d need 4490 reactors to do an additional 90%…not 15000. It’s not that difficult a math problem (I know it doesn’t work exactly like this, but sheesh you could just add 449 10 times and get a rough ballpark based just on the numbers). What do you base your 15,000 plants on? Do you have anything except your assertions? Are you basing it on the total energy production and a rough average of current nuclear plant capacity? If so, show me the money…let’s see your figures. And, of course, how do you propose to arrive at this with solar when you think we can’t do it with nuclear? > [@](#): > > Out of every reactor ever built, 1 in 100 has melted down. So no, my estimate of a meltdown every week is only a little exaggerated. It would feel like it was weekly. Do you have a citation showing that 1 in 100 built has melted down? There are currently 450 reactors…that would mean 4.5 had melted down (I can think of 3 meltdowns, and there has probably been others…but then, there were many more nuclear plants than are currently in production). And over what time period did they meltdown? See, unless you are saying that 1 in 100 meltdown every year then your weekly assertion is so far off base as to be ridiculous, since, you know, those ‘meltdowns’ (by which I’m guessing you hyperbolically mean any nuclear power accident) happened over several decades. I did a quick google search on this, so I’ll be interested to see what you come back with to support 1 in 100 ‘meltdowns’. It’s funny that you are trying to defend it when I was just making a joke. To be sure, it was at your expense, but you seem to open yourself up to this thing almost like you are playing the straight man role in a comedy pair. But, you know, even if we take your 1 in 100, thats 150 meltdowns over, presumably, several decades. How many weeks are in your year? ---
**Author:** ![SamuelA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@SamuelA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SamuelA)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-world-on-100-renewable-energy-is-it-feasible-using-the-following-method/801946/76 "2017-11-20T19:34:37Z")
> [@XT](#): > > How would you know if I’d understand it or not? You know nothing about my background or what I do or don’t know. > There are currently 449 production nuclear reactors that comprise around 11% of the total worldwide power generation. Many if not most are older, gen 2 or gen 3 reactors. Many aren’t working at full capacity. Even if we assume they all are, let’s look at those numbers. 449 comprising 11% would roughly mean that you’d need 4490 reactors to do an additional 90%…not 15000. It’s not that difficult a math problem (I know it doesn’t work exactly like this, but sheesh you could just add 449 10 times and get a rough ballpark based just on the numbers). > > What do you base your 15,000 plants on? Do you have anything except your assertions? Are you basing it on the total energy production and a rough average of current nuclear plant capacity? If so, show me the money…let’s see your figures. > > And, of course, how do you propose to arrive at this with solar when you think we can’t do it with nuclear? > > Do you have a citation showing that 1 in 100 built has melted down? There are currently 450 reactors…that would mean 4.5 had melted down. And over what time period did they meltdown? See, unless you are saying that 1 in 100 meltdown every year then your weekly assertion is so far off base as to be ridiculous, since, you know, those ‘meltdowns’ (by which I’m guessing you hyperbolically mean any nuclear power accident) happened over several decades. I did a quick google search on this, so I’ll be interested to see what you come back with to support 1 in 100 ‘meltdowns’. > > It’s funny that you are trying to defend it when I was just making a joke. To be sure, it was at your expense, but you seem to open yourself up to this thing almost like you are playing the straight man role in a comedy pair. There’s a 2x multiplier because you need to also charge up all those electric cars and trucks to stop emissions. And then as I mentioned, not every truck can be electric (you need emergency and military vehicles, at a minimum, to still burn liquid fuels), it’s against the laws of physics to electrify long distance passenger airliners, and of course there are ships as well. So you have to make synthetic fuel, just with nuclear heat and electricity. Which, by the way, is more efficient in some ways - you can use nuclear heated steam to reduce how much energy is needed for electrolysis, and you can drive synthetic methanol production forward with nuclear heat. Hence, 15k as a first order estimate. As for meltdowns, 0.01 \* 440 = what number? Is that number bigger or smaller than 6, the actual number of meltdowns. Do you trust empirical data or paper analysis in your field? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-world-on-100-renewable-energy-is-it-feasible-using-the-following-method/801946/77 "2017-11-20T19:42:42Z")
> [@SamuelA](#): > > There’s a 2x multiplier because you need to also charge up all those electric cars and trucks to stop emissions. And then as I mentioned, not every truck can be electric (you need emergency and military vehicles, at a minimum, to still burn liquid fuels), it’s against the laws of physics to electrify long distance passenger airliners, and of course there are ships as well. So you have to make synthetic fuel, just with nuclear heat and electricity. Which, by the way, is more efficient in some ways - you can use nuclear heated steam to reduce how much energy is needed for electrolysis, and you can drive synthetic methanol production forward with nuclear heat. > > Hence, 15k as a first order estimate. > > As for meltdowns, 0.01 \* 440 = what number? Is that number bigger or smaller than 6, the actual number of meltdowns. Do you trust empirical data or paper analysis in your field? Show me the data. I get an additional 250 research reactors and 110 commercial and 45 experimental reactors that have been decommissioned (thus aren’t part of the 450 I mentioned). None of this includes any of the military reactors in things like carriers or other capital ships in any navy, btw, which is going to up it more. So, just based on this, yes…it’s more than 6. But let’s see your numbers, since you obviously want to defend this ridiculous point instead of just shrugging it off as what it was…hyperbole. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-world-on-100-renewable-energy-is-it-feasible-using-the-following-method/801946/78 "2017-11-20T19:43:40Z")
Sure, we could in principle give the entire world an American standard of living (though not an American lifestyle-- there’s a difference) through a combination of greater efficiency, hydroelectric, wind, and solar. That’s a possible state of existence. The hard part isn’t in seeing that that state is possible: The hard part is _getting_ there from here. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-world-on-100-renewable-energy-is-it-feasible-using-the-following-method/801946/79 "2017-11-20T19:47:38Z")
re nuclear reactors, do they “scale up” well? I just Googled, and find that small ones generate about 1/6 the power of large ones. Would there be any good in building “humongous” ones that generate lots more power? Or is the strategy of building more of them, of average size, a better idea? I wonder the same thing about windmills: do great big monstrous windmills work “better” than a whole bunch of smaller ones? Is there a “natural optimum” for windmills? (My b.i.l. really wants to put up a small one on his ranch, to contribute a little to household power.) ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-world-on-100-renewable-energy-is-it-feasible-using-the-following-method/801946/80 "2017-11-20T19:48:49Z")
Missed the edit: Meant to say this: > [@](#): > > So, you are projecting your estimate based on a need for new power growth? Because based on the current power today, we don’t need 15,000 plants, even 15,000 of the older plants. Not unless you mean to make smaller plants in a more distributed fashion? If so, then that’s fine, but then it changes a lot of things, such as making your assertion of an accident a week even less likely (and also reduces the cost per reactor if they are going to be smaller). > > Basically, just to be clear, I’m not advocating 100% nuclear. I’m simply saying we could use nuclear power as part of the mix, and if we used it more (there are currently 60 new plants being built btw) it would help to reduce CO2 much more than solar currently can wrt replacing coal fired power. Me, I think we need a mix of power production solutions, not a one size fits all. Which is why your OP is so silly. Even fusion, if we ever get it, probably won’t be 100%. Certainly solar won’t. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-world-on-100-renewable-energy-is-it-feasible-using-the-following-method/801946.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-world-on-100-renewable-energy-is-it-feasible-using-the-following-method/801946.md?page=5)