in reply to Scott

Actually 2025-2026 is the first time growth of coal generation in China has stopped.

The problem with coal is you have to buy it, ship it, burn it, and then deal with the health problems and dark skies in the area where you do... They don't care about environmentalism in an abstract sense, but they want to have blue skies over their cities...

Nuclear and solar don't have any of these problems. Solar is intermittent, nuclear is expensive.

in reply to Scott

The problem is that the narrative that solar is Hippy Shit WAS 100% correct, about 20 years ago. But what happened was the price of cells fucking collapsed and nobody was paying attention.

You have to really watch out for technological shifts because this sometimes happens where an over-hyped / unusable technology suddenly becomes very realistic and nobody notices...

Now the hippies are whining about farmland getting plastered over by giant solar farms - which alone should tell you that the rules have changed...

🌲-alist reshared this.

in reply to Caleb James DeLisle

@Caleb James DeLisle @Scott Free cells, the ultimate cell price collapse, would be great for power you only need when the sun is shining, unfortunately on average there are 4 hours of usable sunlight / day that are direct enough for full power production, that's worse in the winter when the energy is needed most. Presently we've got between 10-20 minutes of global energy storage, enough to level transient events, not enough to provide power when the Sun is hiding. In a world where everyone wasn't trying to kill each other we could create an intercontinental HVDC supergrid and utilize renewable sources much more effectively but that's not the world we have today.
in reply to Nanook

The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please go to the original post.

The fact that you need stable power generation doesn't mean that power is *free* when the sun is shining, so solar still makes value even if it can't be the only source.

Solar + hydroelectric is a great combination because the less hydro you need, the less water you need out of your dam. Furthermore, if you're able to pump water back up into your dam, then you have an ~infinite scale battery.

Pic rel is a simulation of a 22kw system based on real 2025 solar irradiation data where I live (France). I have not started installing this, but pricing out the hardware it looks like it'll be about 8k.

in reply to Nanook

The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please go to the original post.

Well sure, but I mean CARS aren't sufficient for reaching all places - there are places only reachable by boat and/or plane. But they're still absolutely dominant.

My take is that this crazy chart is probably NOT going to stop until coal has become marginalized.

I think gas is not going away soon because there's no real mining to do once you complete the well, it just comes out. Also gas power plants are small, efficient, and can be quickly ramped.

Hydro is certainly not going anywhere - but we already have pretty much all the hydro we're going to have. Nuclear will continue to grow, but it's super expensive to build and that cost needs to come down.

Geothermal is a big unknown. If they manage to make it economical it could largely replace nuclear, but it's still not proven...

in reply to Caleb James DeLisle

@Caleb James DeLisle @Scott The thing is your every day existence doesn't require reaching all places, so if your car doesn't get you there it's not the end of the world, but growing food requires fertilizer, ammonia, presently usually ammonia derived from natural gas and nitrogen, farm equipment is required to prepare, plant, maintain, and harvest it, this equipment is powered by diesel, there are industrial processes that can create hydrocarbons of any length from captured CO2 and water and electricity but these do not work well, or at all, with intermittent power, then you also need diesel to get the food to market. My point, we need infrastructure to replace fossil fuels for these functions before we exhaust that which we have and we are closer than people might think because they mistake fossil fuels in the ground from those which are useful and economically recoverable.
in reply to Nanook

I think you're reading things into what I'm saying that I never said.

I don't see oil being disused any time in this century. I also don't believe in Peak Oil because it's like Climate Crisis, it was supposed to happen every decade since the 80s and it still hasn't hit. We still keep making MASSIVE new oil discoveries about once every 2 years.

I do think EVs are going to replace ICEs in most applications - but the reason I think so is because electricity is just cheaper than fuel.

in reply to Caleb James DeLisle

@Caleb James DeLisle @Scott Well I do believe in it because I am familiar with a number called ROI (Return on Investment), and EROI (energy return on investment).

In the early days of oil production, oil existed in reservoirs under pressure, poke a hole in the ground and oil would erupt from it. This was the early stages of the Saudi Arabian Ghawar field. In that time EROI was on the order of 50-100:1.

As these reservoirs began to exhaust and loose pressure at first it became necessary to pump oil out of them. Then it became necessary to inject water to force remaining oil out, and over time the ratio of water to oil recovered.

Now remaining oil we have left is largely in two forms, shale oil and tar sands. There are problems with both of these. They both require much more energy input to get a unit out, now our EROI is on the order of 2-3:1 not the 50:1 or so it was initially, worse yet, shale oil contains mostly light distillates like naptha and octane, natural gasoline, but not heavier distillates necessary for diesel and jet fuel that our food production and distribution rely on.

Tar sands by contrast mostly heavy distillates, tar, bitumen, useful for making asphalt, bunker oil, but again not diesel.

Venezuela for example, largest oil fields on Earth, plenty to go around, problem is they're all tar sands, bitumen and tar, and unlike Canadian tar sands which are surface level, can be strip mined, these are a mile deep and require injection of steam and/or naptha to get them liquid enough to be pumped out, even at that perhaps 10% of those reserves are recoverable, and even those that can be recovered are only useful for asphalt and bunker oil.

It's not about how many hydrocarbons remain in the planet, it's about those which are economically recoverable and which have the molecular weights in demand. Those are in short supply, and without those no food product, we can not produce enough food for eight billion people with oxen and oxen drawn plows.

So you can not believe in this until food becomes prohibitively expensive and by that time industry won't be sufficient to recover, or you can work on addressing the issue now. Personally, I like to eat.

in reply to Caleb James DeLisle

@cjd @nanook @maxburn

The limiting faxtor is grid forming and renewables SUCK at that. Germany already has many places where wind cant ve built bc no lines left bit also no correaponding grid former left.

siemens-energy.com/global/en/h…

This website uses cookies. If you continue browsing this website, you agree to the usage of cookies.

⇧