5977

There are probably some good models in Western Europe or Japan the U.S. might follow. Just a thought.

Also, when stacked against the destruction of the entire planet I wouldn’t object much to any given label a sensible plan gets slapped with. I never understood what was so bad about the S word: vague religious objections and that it didn’t work out for the U.S.S.R, pretty much. There are ways forward which combine good parts of both capitalism and socialism.

5978

It’s a good thing Greta isn’t trying to guide global policy, then.

It isn’t, putting a steering wheel on the economy instead of waiting for it to keep going by bumping on guardrails when it keeps zigzagging is not the same as controlling the whole drive. Even Bernie’s massive plan is on the back of capitalism.

5979

That’s the headline, here’s the report itself: https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/-World-Nuclear-Industry-Status-Report-2019-.html

It’s true that nuclear as it currently exists does take forever to implement, and is very expensive. Of course, there’s a lot of detail behind that. It could be made cheaper, it could be done faster, if the political will was in place to make the necessary investments. Largely that would require revamps of regulation and safety rules to account for technological advances and prevent regulatory capture by private industry. These kinds of headlines don’t make it any more likely for that to happen.

5980

Is the impediment to a global solar power grid technical or political? I mean, the sun is shining on half the planet all the time. Build solar farms all around the world, connect them to a single grid and shunt the power where it is needed.

I get that this doesn’t happen because power grids are national things, not international things, and that there isn’t any willingness to engage in an international power grid solution; but is there a technical problem with that approach? I genuinely don’t know, and it seems like an obvious solution to a non-power-grid-engineering-specialist.

5981

There are power losses over distance, and the distances from one side of the world to another are quite tremendous. That can be mitigated by higher voltage, but I don’t know if it would be practical to have voltages high enough to do that. Then of course you have the oceans to deal with. And quite a lot of cable to manufacture.

Plus, I mean, the political obstacles are not exactly small. You’d need quite a worldwide regime to ensure that rebels in Siberia don’t knock North America out of power, or whatever. Considering the obstacles to nuclear are basically political, I don’t know how we can wave that away.

5982

Not necessarily. Canada’s carbon tax is being redistributed to Canadians as an income tax rebate in a fixed amount. The government has said that 70% of Canadians will get back more than they pay in taxes. The 30% that get back less will mostly be those with larger homes to heat.

5983

France demonstrated how to do this effectively over 40 years ago. But the U.S. is hellbent on doing things the most expensive and inefficient way possible.

5984

Some non-political obstacles to nuclear:

  • Hugely expensive. More expensive than building capacity in renewables.
  • Weapons proliferation
  • Uses non-renewables
  • Waste heat
  • Expensive to run, maintain, and shut down
  • Radioactive waste
  • Potential for catastrophic accidents
5985

This is in the context of “can we build a global electrical grid that shunts power from the daylight side to the nighttime side”. Expense and other drawbacks are one thing, but if enough political will was there, it (nuclear) could be done. The political will to make nuclear feasible is less than the political will to make a conventional global electric solar grid feasible.

Not to say that nuclear is necessarily the best course (though technical solutions to most of you objections are feasible).

5986

The United States currently produces more power than France does with nuclear energy (more than twice as much with nearly twice as many reactors.) France’s total construction fell well short of the number of plants envisioned by the Messmer plan, and they’re facing the same political issues we do with extending plant life. France has not commissioned any new reactors since 2000, and new reactor projects have faced–as nuclear is wont to do–cost overruns and delays. Waste heat is an ongoing problem for French reactors. They have an efficient fuel cycle, but still are storing over a million cubic meters of waste. Nuclear isn’t a panacea.

5987

Yes, that’s the obvious part.

I assumed distance was a problem, just don’t know enough to know how or why or whether it could be overcome.

I guess I’m just wondering what the ideal, technically feasible solution is. Assuming politics were set aside.

5988

Quite seriously, back to my point, the ideal technical solution is market-pricing of carbon and electricity. Electricity should be expensive on a still night when the gas generators need to be fired up, and it should be expensive enough that costly storage solutions (batteries, molten salt, whatever) become economical. A hope for a worldwide grid powering us with African sunlight during the night so we can run a/c for 4 cents a day… is just another reason to keep doing nothing.

5989

Wikipedia has this tidbit:

As of 1980, the longest cost-effective distance for direct-current transmission was determined to be 7,000 kilometres (4,300 miles). For alternating current it was 4,000 kilometres (2,500 miles), though all transmission lines in use today are substantially shorter than this.[21]

I don’t know if there are other ways to get around it. I suspect continent-sized grids plus storage would be more feasible, mostly because I’ve heard people talk about the challenges of larger smart grids but this is the first time I’ve heard questions about a global grid.

5990

I imagine cost-effective is a qualifier that may no longer apply in the current context.

I don’t agree. Creating a market incentive to change isn’t automatically the best way to get them to change. We don’t e.g. tax murder to discourage it. If you want people to to switch to electrical cars, set a timetable to ban existing cars and provide subsidies so low-income people can buy electric ones.

5991

Working against consumer preference is a foolish errand and it’s never worked before. On the other hand market pricing is a proven method and it works great. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax

Cigarettes, alcohol, sugary drinks - increasing the cost lowers their use. Telling Coca-Cola to not sell so much soda… does not work.

5992

Cigarettes and Mountain Dew are a little different than necessities like energy and transportation.

5993

They’re different in that they are even easier to substitute. Your computer doesn’t care where the electricity comes from, and if you want to drive a 5000lb vehicle to get a coffee and donut, it doesn’t matter if it’s a electric car vs a gas car. Cutting sugar or quitting smoking is hard.

5994

This is not true, when you consider that for most renewables, you would need to build 2-3 times the capacity to match the capacity of a nuclear plant, since you’re only able to generate at certain times and need to store power for the down times. You ALSO need to build storage so that you can use that capacity on the off hours.

The cost per megawatt how for things like solar may have dropped below that of a nuclear plant, but those megawatt hours are not always available.

5995

Of course it does. There are any number of things it is illegal to buy or sell, and, generally speaking, those things are not bought and sold. There are things it is illegal to manufacture, and manufacturers don’t manufacture them. There are behaviors it is illegal to engage in, and, generally speaking, people don’t engage in them. We did not end e.g. child labor exploitation by creating a surtax on the products of companies that engaged in it. We made it illegal.

5996

I think the problem is that you think that, for most people, it’s easier to buy an electric car than to reduce sugar intake. Which is why I said that’s a rich person’s view.