The Energy Collective is a multi-author site covering energy and climate topics, including nuclear power, oil, solar fuels, and power transmission.
HN links it for articles on nuclear safety and AC versus DC power lines; commenters describe it as full of insights from energy and climate experts.
I have a solar startup that specifically focuses on automating interaction with utilities, and the excitement and ambition in the solar industry right now is off the charts. There is an unbelievable amount of momentum in favor of solar, and most solar companies see these problems as totally solvable. Hawaii is seen as a microcosm for the way the rest of the U.S. will be in 10 years or less.
Here's some of the things that solar has going for it:
1. The Governor of California recently set a mandate to reach 50% renewables by 2030[1]. We want to hit this target in ten years or less.
2. The Department of Energy's Sunshot initiative is funding solar technology and software development to drive the installed cost below $1 per watt by 2017[2]. So far, we are on track to hit these targets.
3. Batteries are getting super cheap, which will turn solar into a non-intermittent source and allow solar+storage to be just as cheap as grid prices[3]. In fact, there is actually quite a bit of worry about grid defection (we are starting to see this Hawaii)[4].
4. Wall Street is funding solar projects at a massive rate[5]. The bottleneck right now in solar is finding customers, not financiers.
5. The federal subsidy for solar is expiring in 2017, but the industry is on track to absorb the cost and continue to thrive without any subsidy[6]. This will make us much harder to kill off politically.
6. The advent of community solar will solve the renting problem, where renters be able to buy…
This is a great idea for a start up. A service for debunking non petroleum technology.
All it takes is a bunch of internet smart nay-sayers with a telemarketing script. From looking arround here the debunking doesn't even have to be good. The appaling quality of it has my eyes rolling with dollar signs. People believe anything(!!??), all it takes is to announce yourself to be an expert who use to work in solar roads, then explain the futility of it all; Make sure to drape it with so much negativity that the positive discussion is drowned out. Like taking candy from a baby.[1]
Given the exponential growth of the solar industry[2] the damage control has exponential effect. Something has to be done if the people with money want to continue bleading the little guy dry. How are we going to heard the little peoples children into our military bases if they can just tap energy from the sun? If you give them any time to themselves they will get all sorts of ideas of their own, stuff revolutions are made of, potentially disasterous. Say people notice their cars are much to heavy for the new road? We would not just loose big on our roads made from oil, our whole swindle could come down like a house of cards. They could very well all change into communists, then we would have to take other liberties and put them all down.
My business would be like a glorious beacon of hope, saving the little people from themselves.
[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90TzRnrV14I
[2] -…
> You are aware that your numbers are wrong?
No, the numbers are correct.
> but Chernobyl caused many more deaths.
No, 56 direct deaths. Check the Wikipedia article.
"56 direct deaths (47 accident workers and nine children with thyroid cancer) and it is estimated that there may eventually be 4,000 extra cancer deaths among the approximately 600,000 most highly exposed people."
> Even the WHO predicted 4000
(a) that is an estimate and (b) those are classified as indirect deaths, not least because they are estimated to occur over a span of 30-40 years. Also, these estimates are hard because cancer rates in the area have significant fluctuation due to other causes. And these are the estimates that were revised downward with every iteration of the report (every 10 years AFAICT).
So 4000 is the best number we have and, given the history of these projections, still likely to be on the high side.
> that is one of the lower figures.
It is likely to be the most accurate one, and they have been revising that estimate down with each report they publish. The other figures are generally from organizations with agendas to push and usually without any actual evidence.
> to say it was 56 is not even a base for discussion
Actually, that is the correct number of direct deaths, and the only ones where we can be certain of the causation.
> all the deaths caused by nuclear energy...including uran production
Please read the other linked article: …
Over on reddit, a lot of speculation in https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/43opxy/does_anyone_know_what_the_chinese_miners_are/ suggesting partnerships / kickbacks. That said, the entire thread is speculation without a single sourced link.
For some actual numbers, http://www.theenergycollective.com/lindsay-wilson/279126/average-electricity-prices-around-world-kwh shows the cost of electricity around the world... though thats over the entire country (Pacific northwest is cheaper than other places). I would expect that the Three Gorges dam (22 MW capacity - for comparison the Grand Coulee Dam is 6.8 MW and is the largest hydroelectric power in the US (Hoover is 2 MW)- the run of the river dams on the Columbia are in the 2 MW to 1 MW range). Historically, Pacific Northwest power has been as low as $0.0308 and $0.0245 / kWh. Its a bit more now, but still lower than the national average.
From http://www.isi.fraunhofer.de/isi-wAssets/docs/x/de/publs-mitarbeiterseiten/Electricity-Costs-of-Energy-Intensive-Industries.pdf it appears that if you use enough, you're at wholesale rather than retail or commercial rates.
If its not free (the implications of corruption in Chinese government are made here), the retail power cost is going to be low, commercial is lower, wholesale is going to be lower still. Its probably a bit cheaper than the historic Pacific Northwest rates.
> Yes, it emphatically is semantics.
Quibbling over semantics.
> Yes you are. Arguing, that is. And back then, you probably would have argued that shutting down that nuclear plant would have been a boon to health, because "evil/bad nuclear".
You're not only nit-picking over semantics, you're also making incorrect assumptions.
> Germany: missing nuclear largely replaced with "new coal"
> http://www.theenergycollective.com/robertwilson190/328841/wh...
A 2014 article with projections for 2013 based on the author's own calculations on a site run by a mysterious owner with no credentials. The projections were completely wrong, by the way, as you can see here: https://www.energy-charts.de/power_inst.htm
> Japan: an industry savior? (The coal industry, mind you)
> https://www.worldcoal.com/special-reports/13052015/japan-coa...
Another shady source. I give you that if you shut down all reactors in a country with a large proportion of nuclear energy generation you will still be in a conundrum. Still, Japan made up for the gap almost entirely with natural gas, not coal.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/03/11/japans-energy-dilemma-in-one-chart/
Off topic perhaps, but I switched from oil/steam to gas forced hot air last year. Between the 96% efficient furnace and new gas hot water heater (compared with the 75% oil / steam with super inefficient continuous hot water attachment) and the fracking boom, I can report that gas is much, much cheaper: for me $3500 -> $700 / year for a 1100 sq/ft apartment near Boston.
http://theenergycollective.com/lindsay-wilson/307486/heating-cost-comparison-oil-heat-vs-gas-heat-vs-electric-heat-prices
A heat pump with ground heat-sink may be a better long term option, but it's much more expensive. Also I'm pretty sure the gas is more efficient when considering the power plant and transmission line losses.
Even better would be a home gas co-generation plant. Honda has such a thing, but again not cheap:
http://world.honda.com/powerproducts-technology/cogeneration/