The Remarkable Progress of Renewable Energy

[TV and credit cards]

Quaise energy latest millimeter wave drilling test.

“We were able to drill that 118 meter hole on our first try,” Lamb explained. “It’s been highly successful, beyond all of our best hopes.”

Although the team wasn’t focused on speed, they still reached drilling rates of up to 16 feet (five meters) per hour through some of the world’s hardest rock. “That’s extremely fast,” Lamb revealed.

The company’s next goal involves using the millimeter wave technology to drill 10 times deeper and reach a full kilometer within the next months.

Very impressive, though I notice they didn't mention how much energy was used - which will obviously be a major factor in the cost of this technique if they want to bring it into widespread use.

I also wish journalists would stop saying stuff like this:

At approximately 387 feet (118 meters), the hole is the deepest ever drilled with millimeter-waves, which are similar to the microwaves used in an oven.

Millimeter waves are "similar to the microwaves used in an oven" in much the same way that they are also "similar to the light used to see at night". The comparison tells the reader exactly nothing about the technology, except the somewhat irrelevant fact that the reporter has no clue how it works.

Here's a recent article that speaks to that: This startup wants to use beams of energy to drill geothermal wells

The one-megawatt system actually needs a little over three megawatts of power overall, including the energy needed to run support equipment like cooling systems and the compressor that blows air into the hole, carrying the rock dust back up to the surface. That power demand is similar to what an oil and gas rig requires today.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

For someone with no knowledge of the electromagnetic spectrum it's a reasonable approximation pointless comparison with something else they don't understand either. For those who know the difference it doesn't matter if the reporter says that.

FTFY.

Either way, the reporter saying that adds exactly zero to the understanding of their readers.

If I don't understand electromagnetic radiation, then I don't know how a microwave oven works. Making an approximate and low accuracy analogy would be bad enough, but making such an analogy with something your audience also doesn't know about is daft.

So why say it?

"It works by transmuting slood"

"WTF is slood??"

"It's a kind of ganzumple, just at a different temperature".

Did that 'explanation' help? At all??

But it gives a sense of familiarity even though they don't truly understand. You can have some appreciation for what it does without understanding how it does it.

 

[crazyfingers]

Federal judge put an in injunction on Trump administration order to stop work on a nearly completed massive wind farm off RI and CT.

Work can continue.

I guess the Trump administration stopped the project because Wind is Woke.

Federal judge lifts Trump administration's halt of nearly complete offshore wind farm in New England

A federal judge has ruled that a nearly complete offshore wind project halted by the Trump administration can resume, dealing President Donald Trump a setback in his ongoing effort to restrict the U.S. offshore wind industry.

apnews.com

 

[ZiprHead]

White House cancels nearly $8B in clean energy projects in blue states

The Trump administration has announced the cancellation of $7.6 billion in funding for clean energy projects across 16 states.

www.pbs.org

 

[bilby]

If ( or rather, when) there are issues with nuclear power, they will be very long term.

By the time nuclear power could possibly create enough "issues" of any kind as to surpass the issues from coal power, we will all have been dead for hundreds of thousands of years.

And that's assuming that we embark on a massive build out of nuclear worldwide, today, and don't stop until it's the dominant technology for generating electricity.

 

[Elixir]

If ( or rather, when) there are issues with nuclear power, they will be very long term.

Yeah, using energy has impacts and there is no way to avoid thermodynamic laws. But nuclear is the lowest impact of available energy sources, and decentralized power is the most stable. The future lies that way IMO, which is why I originally was, and remain, a fan of OKLO.

The "issues" you envision are exactly ... what? Site contamination? Waste disposal? What? Are they greater than the same issues or less manageable (per joule, foot pound or whatever unit of useable energy or work) than the same isues from wind, solar or fossil fuels?
AFAICT (I have read a tiny bit about it), the answer is a resounding "no".

Unfortunately I don't think humans are about to "return to nature" as a species, live as compatible small tribes and stop consuming energy. I hope for mankind that plentiful energy for human wants and needs will be available in the future and that it's use will not continue to be to the detriment to the other living things on the planet. I don't see any other path at the moment.

 

[Toni]

If ( or rather, when) there are issues with nuclear power, they will be very long term.

By the time nuclear power could possibly create enough "issues" of any kind as to surpass the issues from coal power, we will all have been dead for hundreds of thousands of years.

And that's assuming that we embark on a massive build out of nuclear worldwide, today, and don't stop until it's the dominant technology for generating electricity.

But it isn’t a choice between coal vs nuclear. Solar has much better potential for clean energy.

Also I don’t know if you’ve had nuclear accidents in Australia but we’ve had them in the US and also in Russia. Ongoing cleanup and decommissioning continues to this day re; Three Mile Island, beginning in 1979. So 46 years later, it’s not all fixed. Waste material was shipped more than 2000 miles from Pennsylvania to Idaho.

 

[bilby]

If ( or rather, when) there are issues with nuclear power, they will be very long term.

By the time nuclear power could possibly create enough "issues" of any kind as to surpass the issues from coal power, we will all have been dead for hundreds of thousands of years.

And that's assuming that we embark on a massive build out of nuclear worldwide, today, and don't stop until it's the dominant technology for generating electricity.

But it isn’t a choice between coal vs nuclear. Solar has much better potential for clean energy.

No, it doesn't. It could, if you can arrange for daytime to last 24 hours, with no clouds.

Also I don’t know

Seriously, what you don't know about the subject is clearly endless, given this utter tripe masquerading as useful commentary:

if you’ve had nuclear accidents in Australia but we’ve had them in the US and also in Russia. Ongoing cleanup and decommissioning continues to this day re; Three Mile Island, beginning in 1979. So 46 years later, it’s not all fixed. Waste material was shipped more than 2000 miles from Pennsylvania to Idaho.

This is Flat Earth level disinformation.

It is "not even wrong", and frankly I don't have the energy to adress it YET AGAIN. Do a search for posts by me with the keyword "nuclear", and read and attempt to understand what I have written at great length and with considerable detail in the past. Better still, learn about how electricity is generated by all the different technologies we have tried (and how integrated grids supply that electricity 24/7/365), and compare them one against another. None are perfect, but one is clearly and by FAR the least harmful.

Suffice to say that the only fatal nuclear power accident ever was at Chernobyl, and that we would need a Chernobyl "disaster" twice a month, forever, in order to approach the same level of worldwide death, illness, injury and environmental damage that other electricity generating technologies cause in normal (non accident) operations.

You have a very strong opinion, based on a LOT of "Also I don’t know". You - like most of those with strong opinions on this subject - need to stop talking, and start studying.

"Nuclear power isn't dangerous" is as true, and as unnecessary (to anyone with clue the first), a statement as "the Earth isn't flat".

 

[Toni]

If ( or rather, when) there are issues with nuclear power, they will be very long term.

By the time nuclear power could possibly create enough "issues" of any kind as to surpass the issues from coal power, we will all have been dead for hundreds of thousands of years.

And that's assuming that we embark on a massive build out of nuclear worldwide, today, and don't stop until it's the dominant technology for generating electricity.

But it isn’t a choice between coal vs nuclear. Solar has much better potential for clean energy.

No, it doesn't. It could, if you can arrange for daytime to last 24 hours, with no clouds.

Also I don’t know

Seriously, what you don't know about the subject is clearly endless, given this utter tripe masquerading as useful commentary:

if you’ve had nuclear accidents in Australia but we’ve had them in the US and also in Russia. Ongoing cleanup and decommissioning continues to this day re; Three Mile Island, beginning in 1979. So 46 years later, it’s not all fixed. Waste material was shipped more than 2000 miles from Pennsylvania to Idaho.

This is Flat Earth level disinformation.

It is "not even wrong", and frankly I don't have the energy to adress it YET AGAIN. Do a search for posts by me with the keyword "nuclear", and read and attempt to understand what I have written at great length and with considerable detail in the past. Better still, learn about how electricity is generated by all the different technologies we have tried (and how integrated grids supply that electricity 24/7/365), and compare them one against another. None are perfect, but one is clearly and by FAR the least harmful.

Suffice to say that the only fatal nuclear power accident ever was at Chernobyl, and that we would need a Chernobyl "disaster" twice a month, forever, in order to approach the same level of worldwide death, illness, injury and environmental damage that other electricity generating technologies cause in normal (non accident) operations.

You have a very strong opinion, based on a LOT of "Also I don’t know". You - like most of those with strong opinions on this subject - need to stop talking, and start studying.

"Nuclear power isn't dangerous" is as true, and as unnecessary (to anyone with clue the first), a statement as "the Earth isn't flat".

If only solar energy could be stored in something like…a battery?

 

[bilby]

If only solar energy could be stored in something like…a battery?

A free battery made with no environmental impact that's as safe as a nuclear power plant?

Yeah, if only.

Meanwhile, the laws of physics continue to apply, even if you prefer to ignore them.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If ( or rather, when) there are issues with nuclear power, they will be very long term.

We understand the issues with nuke. There have been no big surprises for a long time.

And the statistics remain clear: Gas is 10x as dangerous as nuke. Oil is 10x as dangerous as gas. Coal is 10x as dangerous as oil. The as safe as reasonably possible safety standard for nuclear actually increases risk considerably.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But it isn’t a choice between coal vs nuclear. Solar has much better potential for clean energy.

Solar is currently non-viable and that is not expected to change. Solar isn't consistent, you need fossil fuel plants ready to take up the load.

Also I don’t know if you’ve had nuclear accidents in Australia but we’ve had them in the US and also in Russia. Ongoing cleanup and decommissioning continues to this day re; Three Mile Island, beginning in 1979. So 46 years later, it’s not all fixed. Waste material was shipped more than 2000 miles from Pennsylvania to Idaho.

Three Mile Island: Some NRC guys were on site and took a perfectly manageable incident and turned it into destruction of a reactor. Death toll: zero. Effective risk: basically zero. If you were standing at the reactor fence when it happened would evacuating be a good idea? You come to your first street--nope, crossing one street is more dangerous than staying put for the duration.

Chernobyl: Major mistake, killed dozens. The predicted mass radiation deaths did not appear.

Fukushima: Once again, a case of meddling. The engineers knew they had to vent, the politicians would not permit it. The stuff they didn't vent blew up. Even with the politician's meddling the expected death toll was zero. They meddled once again, evacuating the city and killing hundreds in the process. That one fake problem killed more than all real nuclear issues have. Growing food in the city probably wouldn't have been a good idea, but it shouldn't have been evacuated.

There have been plenty of industrial accidents with other power sources. There have been individual incidents with coal that killed more than the lifetime record for nuclear.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If only solar energy could be stored in something like…a battery?

A simple non-answer.

A while back I looked the economics: The life cycle cost of all battery technologies exceeded the market value of the power they produce in that lifetime. I have not seen recent updates but I doubt this has changed. Batteries exist for load balancing, not for meaningful power storage. Batteries only make sense in environments you can't connect to the grid, or in a few cases where power is life-critical but you can't trust the grid.

The only reason solar appears to make sense is the government requires the utilities to pay for solar/wind as if they had the same value as other power, completely ignoring the economics of the lack of reliability. In reality the value of the solar/wind is the value of the fuel the generators don't need to use, that's it. You still need just as much grid, you still need just as many generators. And you have to limit the capacity--there are places where the utilities forbid new solar connections because the substations can't handle it. Those substations are designed to feed power from the grid to the houses, they are not built to feed power from the houses to the grid. The only path to avoiding a spectacular failure is to limit the solar generation on any grid segment to below the demand from that segment.

Note that a pure solar setup using current technology stores most of the power as hydrogen. And craters the economy by making power several times more expensive than it currently is. And you get the really ironic outcome that pure solar emits more carbon than nearly pure solar with a small amount of fossil fuels as backup. (The carbon is coming from the construction of the equipment, not from it's operation.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Related:

https://www.thetimes.com/business-money/technology/article/palantir-founder-peter-thiel-antichrist-lectures-religion-qzmpth35t

 

[Jarhyn]

Related:

https://www.thetimes.com/business-money/technology/article/palantir-founder-peter-thiel-antichrist-lectures-religion-qzmpth35t

So, once upon a time back when I was religious, I read the Left Behind series.

It wasn't well written, but it does provide a glimpse into what many millions of Christians think the end of the world will look like.

The thing I find so bizarre, however, is how blind those millions are to very similar events unfolding in reality.

I am utterly shocked and perplexed by the juxtaposition between stated beliefs and their willful worship of an antichristian figure.

Thiel is, himself, working on creating the dystopian forced loyalty system that you would expect from a biblical antichrist.

The Bible itself details that the greatest and most final mark of the end times will consist of a loyalty pledge under threat of execution, and the only people I see threatening execution or death are conservatives right now, and are openly calling for the reversal of victim and offender in our sensibilities.

Now, I'm not any great believer, but I'm at a loss over what to make of all this. Thiel, however, is clearly at or near the center of this Nexus of evil.

If he warns of the antichrist, it appears that his mirror was too shiny, that he could not tell he was looking at his own reflection.

 

[Toni]

AI uses a lot of energy, causing the average person's power bill to rise and who knows what all it's doing to the environment.

Not a problem for long, hopefully.
Oklo’s first power generator, the Aurora powerhouse, is expected to go online in late 2027 or early 2028 at the Idaho National Laboratory. I have high hopes for it.
Their mini-nuke is designed to operate off-grid, generating power specifically for data centers and other high-consumption sites, and I think it will go beyond that if allowed to progress. Anyhow, I’m glad to see some tech billionaire power people embracing the concept of decentralized power generation - and increasingly, backing it.

(Stock I bought a year ago for $12.80 is over $150.00 at the moment, and I think it could go another 10x in the next few years. It fluctuates pretty wildly (up 9% today’s with the indices off 1-2%) but is still listed as a “buy” with a $175 target.)

Penn Gillette of Penn and Teller wrote an essay about Las Vegas and characterized it as city built on "bad math". He said everyday, thousands of people travel to Las Vegas and see waterfalls in the desert, pyramids, and places where the lights are never turned off. According to Gillette, none of these arriving bad mathematicians thinks to ask, "How do they pay for all of this?"

That's the real question. Ginormous data centers cost a lot to build and a lot to run, and a lot to maintain.

If I were thinking about building a toothbrush factory, the calculations would be fairly straightforward, once I knew the price of a toothbrush, what it would cost to make a toothbrush, and the market for toothbrushes. I would hope future toothbrush sales would cover my costs and return a profit on my investment.

All these data centers seem more defensive than economic. Tech bros want a data center because they don't want to be the only one without a data center. Back to the real question. What are they going to produce that can be sold at a price to cover expenses? Macroeconomics has a term know as margin cost of production. What does it cost to produce one more toothbrush? A cyber product, whether it's answer to a Google search or a high school students term paper, has a marginal cost of zero. When the data centers enter the market and have to compete with each other, how will they price the product? Will competition become a race to the bottom between all centers and the only goal is to pay this month's electric bill.

In the year 2025, I'll wager there are more shut down automobile factories than there are operating ones. Factories of all kinds close all the time. It doesn't matter how much was invested to build it, when it can't pay for itself, it's dead.

When a data center shuts down, it will not only kill the jobs inside the fence, but also the jobs in all the infrastructure built to support it. If I had a crystal ball, it would probably show me some WorldCon/Enron/FTX level bankruptcies in the future.

My big concerns re: data centers are in fact the data they collect and generate —and the enormous amounts of wear they consume.

 

[Toni]

Related:

https://www.thetimes.com/business-money/technology/article/palantir-founder-peter-thiel-antichrist-lectures-religion-qzmpth35t

I’m not certain of the purpose of this article ( not commenting on you linking—thank you for that!). Is it to expose Thiel as a religious nut? Is it to attract more religious nuts to him? I would wager Thiel would like to have more cult members.

 

[Toni]

But it isn’t a choice between coal vs nuclear. Solar has much better potential for clean energy.

Solar is currently non-viable and that is not expected to change. Solar isn't consistent, you need fossil fuel plants ready to take up the load.

Also I don’t know if you’ve had nuclear accidents in Australia but we’ve had them in the US and also in Russia. Ongoing cleanup and decommissioning continues to this day re; Three Mile Island, beginning in 1979. So 46 years later, it’s not all fixed. Waste material was shipped more than 2000 miles from Pennsylvania to Idaho.

Three Mile Island: Some NRC guys were on site and took a perfectly manageable incident and turned it into destruction of a reactor. Death toll: zero. Effective risk: basically zero. If you were standing at the reactor fence when it happened would evacuating be a good idea? You come to your first street--nope, crossing one street is more dangerous than staying put for the duration.

Chernobyl: Major mistake, killed dozens. The predicted mass radiation deaths did not appear.

Fukushima: Once again, a case of meddling. The engineers knew they had to vent, the politicians would not permit it. The stuff they didn't vent blew up. Even with the politician's meddling the expected death toll was zero. They meddled once again, evacuating the city and killing hundreds in the process. That one fake problem killed more than all real nuclear issues have. Growing food in the city probably wouldn't have been a good idea, but it shouldn't have been evacuated.

There have been plenty of industrial accidents with other power sources. There have been individual incidents with coal that killed more than the lifetime record for nuclear.

Again, if only there were…batteries!

Seriously. I think it is more than time to look at living within our means of supporting ourselves instead of finding or using more energy sources that are ultimately very destructive to our planet. A large part of that involves creating more efficient users of energy.

We need to work harder to develop renewable energy sources: wind, solar, geothermal.

 

[Toni]

If only solar energy could be stored in something like…a battery?

A simple non-answer.

A while back I looked the economics: The life cycle cost of all battery technologies exceeded the market value of the power they produce in that lifetime. I have not seen recent updates but I doubt this has changed. Batteries exist for load balancing, not for meaningful power storage. Batteries only make sense in environments you can't connect to the grid, or in a few cases where power is life-critical but you can't trust the grid.

The only reason solar appears to make sense is the government requires the utilities to pay for solar/wind as if they had the same value as other power, completely ignoring the economics of the lack of reliability. In reality the value of the solar/wind is the value of the fuel the generators don't need to use, that's it. You still need just as much grid, you still need just as many generators. And you have to limit the capacity--there are places where the utilities forbid new solar connections because the substations can't handle it. Those substations are designed to feed power from the grid to the houses, they are not built to feed power from the houses to the grid. The only path to avoiding a spectacular failure is to limit the solar generation on any grid segment to below the demand from that segment.

Note that a pure solar setup using current technology stores most of the power as hydrogen. And craters the economy by making power several times more expensive than it currently is. And you get the really ironic outcome that pure solar emits more carbon than nearly pure solar with a small amount of fossil fuels as backup. (The carbon is coming from the construction of the equipment, not from it's operation.)

Solar power now accounts for 22% of electrical power in the EU. Germany generates more solar power than Spain, despite having fewer hours of sunlight.

Do I think that solar power will provide for all of our energy needs? No. But I think that renewable energy is the only way to go, along with changes in rampant consumerism, more is more thinking and a much stronger emphasis on energy efficiency and renewable energy sources.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Again, if only there were…batteries!

I addressed them in another post.

Seriously. I think it is more than time to look at living within our means of supporting ourselves instead of finding or using more energy sources that are ultimately very destructive to our planet. A large part of that involves creating more efficient users of energy.

Are you going to volunteer to be one of the ones that dies? Because your "answer" kills most of the human race--and only postpones the collapse.

We need to work harder to develop renewable energy sources: wind, solar, geothermal.

No.

Solar and wind have the same problem: storage. Without viable storage techniques (which do not currently exist even at lab scale) they're a route to self destruction. Keeping pushing on development of the energy collectors fails to address this fundamental problem.

Geothermal works but is very limited. There's only a few areas with enough underground heat to tap. We could build better ways to tap it but that doesn't produce more to tap.

The only viable sources today are coal/oil/gas/nuclear.