Natural catastrophe review 2018(munichre.com)
munichre.com
Natural catastrophe review 2018
https://www.munichre.com/en/media-relations/publications/press-releases/2019/2019-01-08-press-release/index.html
4 comments
> Solar and wind are economical, so now the biggest issue is scaling them up.
I appreciate your passion and desire to fix our planet. But am I the only one who thinks this is the biggest distraction to solving the energy problems of today and the next 100 years? It is just very difficult to get solar to produce the type of energy the world needs for the next 100 years. And it’s the 21st century — its embarrassing that we are talking about wind energy!
Simply put, we need nuclear power. We need to spend more time and energy trying to innovate on nuclear energy. That’s what is needed to support the power needs of 10 billion people who will have the energy demands of a modern western nation today. Solar and wind will just not cut it.
See this talk at NeurIPS 2017
https://nips.cc/Conferences/2017/Schedule?showEvent=8729
https://youtu.be/HL60wgrT67k
I appreciate your passion and desire to fix our planet. But am I the only one who thinks this is the biggest distraction to solving the energy problems of today and the next 100 years? It is just very difficult to get solar to produce the type of energy the world needs for the next 100 years. And it’s the 21st century — its embarrassing that we are talking about wind energy!
Simply put, we need nuclear power. We need to spend more time and energy trying to innovate on nuclear energy. That’s what is needed to support the power needs of 10 billion people who will have the energy demands of a modern western nation today. Solar and wind will just not cut it.
See this talk at NeurIPS 2017
https://nips.cc/Conferences/2017/Schedule?showEvent=8729
https://youtu.be/HL60wgrT67k
Hawaii just signed some solar + storage contracts for $0.11/kwh. That's well below any current or even projected next-gen nuclear price points for at least 20 years. And storage is on target to half its costs or more in the next few years.
I guess I simply haven't seen any indication that nuclear can catch up and compete on price, so it's hard to see investors or utilities getting behind nuclear anytime soon.
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/hawaii-co-op-signs-deal-for...
I guess I simply haven't seen any indication that nuclear can catch up and compete on price, so it's hard to see investors or utilities getting behind nuclear anytime soon.
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/hawaii-co-op-signs-deal-for...
Nuclear is never going to happen, ever, due to a combination of issues (cost, regulation, liability, waste disposal and reprocessing). China is throwing in the towel on most of it's nuclear power plants [1].
I am deeply disappointed you dismiss wind and solar. They're extremely cheap (~2-4 cents/kwh at utility scale), require very little permitting to deploy, and fail safely. You're limited solely by how fast you can churn out PV panels, wind turbines, and get those components installed. Enough sunlight falls on the Earth in 30 minutes to power humanity for a year. The potential is there, and scaling is orders of magnitude more simple with renewables than nuclear. >90% of new generation in the US along each year are renewables. Coal fired plants are decomissioning decades earlier than predicted. Not even natural gas is as profitable as expected in some markets (Texas) due to how much wind power has been generated. 150+ GWac of new solar generation is planned to be online within the next five years in the US [2].
It would take two decades to replace all fossil generation with wind and solar. Faster if we taxed carbon and poured that money into renewables and battery storage. Nothing fancy required. Anyone can be trained to install solar panels, on rooftops or on ground mounts.
[1] https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612564/chinas-losing-its-... (China’s losing its taste for nuclear power. That’s bad news.)
[2] https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2019/01/01/solar-tsunami/
I am deeply disappointed you dismiss wind and solar. They're extremely cheap (~2-4 cents/kwh at utility scale), require very little permitting to deploy, and fail safely. You're limited solely by how fast you can churn out PV panels, wind turbines, and get those components installed. Enough sunlight falls on the Earth in 30 minutes to power humanity for a year. The potential is there, and scaling is orders of magnitude more simple with renewables than nuclear. >90% of new generation in the US along each year are renewables. Coal fired plants are decomissioning decades earlier than predicted. Not even natural gas is as profitable as expected in some markets (Texas) due to how much wind power has been generated. 150+ GWac of new solar generation is planned to be online within the next five years in the US [2].
It would take two decades to replace all fossil generation with wind and solar. Faster if we taxed carbon and poured that money into renewables and battery storage. Nothing fancy required. Anyone can be trained to install solar panels, on rooftops or on ground mounts.
[1] https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612564/chinas-losing-its-... (China’s losing its taste for nuclear power. That’s bad news.)
[2] https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2019/01/01/solar-tsunami/
Watch https://youtu.be/HL60wgrT67k and then give me your thoughts. I am curious to hear them.
Quick comments from skimming the video:
* Speaker shows slide showing power demand increasing sharply into the future. This doesn't square with first world historical electrical demand growth data, and future growth is going to be a function of how quickly the third world develops. Aging first world countries will use less power, China's economy is rapidly slowing, India has an enormous effort to move to solar at the moment [1] [2], and Africa is a wildcard.
* Speaker states that renewables can't provide industrial heat. This is false; there are several methods through which you can obtain industrial heat without fossil fuels [3].
* Speaker states that renewables can't compete with paid off fossil fuel plants. This is false; renewables are already cheaper than continuing to run existing sunk cost thermal generators [4] [5].
* Speaker appears to be advocating for fusion as a viable technology to solve climate change when no production commercial fusion generation technology exists.
[1] https://qz.com/india/1519929/india-will-add-a-record-level-o...
[2] https://qz.com/india/1475736/india-is-now-a-world-leader-in-...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_heat
[4] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/its-now-cheaper-to-build-a-new-...
[5] https://www.utilitydive.com/news/even-in-indiana-new-renewab...
* Speaker shows slide showing power demand increasing sharply into the future. This doesn't square with first world historical electrical demand growth data, and future growth is going to be a function of how quickly the third world develops. Aging first world countries will use less power, China's economy is rapidly slowing, India has an enormous effort to move to solar at the moment [1] [2], and Africa is a wildcard.
* Speaker states that renewables can't provide industrial heat. This is false; there are several methods through which you can obtain industrial heat without fossil fuels [3].
* Speaker states that renewables can't compete with paid off fossil fuel plants. This is false; renewables are already cheaper than continuing to run existing sunk cost thermal generators [4] [5].
* Speaker appears to be advocating for fusion as a viable technology to solve climate change when no production commercial fusion generation technology exists.
[1] https://qz.com/india/1519929/india-will-add-a-record-level-o...
[2] https://qz.com/india/1475736/india-is-now-a-world-leader-in-...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_heat
[4] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/its-now-cheaper-to-build-a-new-...
[5] https://www.utilitydive.com/news/even-in-indiana-new-renewab...
This is what happens when you skim a 48 min talk in 3 minutes ...
> * Speaker appears to be advocating for fusion as a viable technology to solve climate change when no production commercial fusion generation technology exists.
You missed the part where he addresses this. This was the point of his talk -- work on fusion.
> * Speaker states that renewables can't compete with paid off fossil fuel plants. This is false; renewables are already cheaper than continuing to run existing sunk cost thermal generators [4] [5].
Did you miss the 40% cutoff point explained in the video?
> * Speaker appears to be advocating for fusion as a viable technology to solve climate change when no production commercial fusion generation technology exists.
You missed the part where he addresses this. This was the point of his talk -- work on fusion.
> * Speaker states that renewables can't compete with paid off fossil fuel plants. This is false; renewables are already cheaper than continuing to run existing sunk cost thermal generators [4] [5].
Did you miss the 40% cutoff point explained in the video?
I am not arguing against working towards fusion and funding it with R&D dollars. I am arguing against using it as a Hail Mary when it isn't proven and renewables are.
> Did you miss the 40% cutoff point explained in the video?
I did not miss it [1]. The speaker is incorrect. Solar and wind are already cheaper than fossil fuels beyond that point (I included citations above regarding that point). Renewables have gotten that cheap. This is good, as it strands fossil generators as stranded assets, and forces investment in battery storage (which is necessary not just for energy storage, but also grid services such as frequency response, as demonstrated by the Hornsdale Power Reserve [built by Tesla]).
[1] https://youtu.be/HL60wgrT67k?t=1162
> Did you miss the 40% cutoff point explained in the video?
I did not miss it [1]. The speaker is incorrect. Solar and wind are already cheaper than fossil fuels beyond that point (I included citations above regarding that point). Renewables have gotten that cheap. This is good, as it strands fossil generators as stranded assets, and forces investment in battery storage (which is necessary not just for energy storage, but also grid services such as frequency response, as demonstrated by the Hornsdale Power Reserve [built by Tesla]).
[1] https://youtu.be/HL60wgrT67k?t=1162
I also skimmed the video. I felt it to be superficial in dismissing solar, which others nearby have pointed out has costs /kWh that are comparable to fossil fuel.
The arguments presented for dismissing solar were non-quantitative and based on abstract usage-vs-time curves. This is not a sufficient depth of analysis for this problem. It serves to motivate a talk on fusion to a non-specialist audience, but not to decide a societal resource problem.
It's preposterous to say, "we can't solve the solar energy storage problem, so instead let's perform research on using neural networks to control fusion reactions".
The kind of depth I'm after is a National Academies style report. There was a recent one on fusion energy, which is apparently being used to provide guidance for US fusion research. According to the report [1] --
"The four top-tier [new capabilities] identified by the panel were: advanced algorithms, high critical temperature superconductors, advanced materials, and novel technologies for tritium fuel cycle control."
This report does not, however, give tradeoffs among different generation mechanisms.
[1] http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?Rec... and follow to the 250 page pdf.
The arguments presented for dismissing solar were non-quantitative and based on abstract usage-vs-time curves. This is not a sufficient depth of analysis for this problem. It serves to motivate a talk on fusion to a non-specialist audience, but not to decide a societal resource problem.
It's preposterous to say, "we can't solve the solar energy storage problem, so instead let's perform research on using neural networks to control fusion reactions".
The kind of depth I'm after is a National Academies style report. There was a recent one on fusion energy, which is apparently being used to provide guidance for US fusion research. According to the report [1] --
"The four top-tier [new capabilities] identified by the panel were: advanced algorithms, high critical temperature superconductors, advanced materials, and novel technologies for tritium fuel cycle control."
This report does not, however, give tradeoffs among different generation mechanisms.
[1] http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?Rec... and follow to the 250 page pdf.
Mfw when someone casually asks you to watch a predictably 48 minute video about something only they are interested in
Tl;dw?
Tl;dw?
[deleted]
One could argue that nuclear is a huge distraction to solving our problems with solar and wind. I actually think more nuclear power would be great, but I don’t think it’s very realistic politically.
Nor economically... it's very expensive, from cradle to grave, and far beyond (decommissioning and waste storage reaching out for centuries). Solar and wind have zero fuel costs (before mechanical/electronic conversion), have already proven to be very competitive, and can be quickly manufactured and installed (months, not decades).
And they create lots of jobs.
I've heard about promising new, safer nuke tech for decades. So far, no proof in the pudding. Solar and wind tech were deliberately held back, politically, for decades. Too bad, we would be in much less trouble if that hadn't happened.
And they create lots of jobs.
I've heard about promising new, safer nuke tech for decades. So far, no proof in the pudding. Solar and wind tech were deliberately held back, politically, for decades. Too bad, we would be in much less trouble if that hadn't happened.
I don’t think it’s sensible to simultaneously argue that renewables are cheaper and create a lot of jobs. Jobs are the main expense, so it’s one or the other.
I don't agree. While ongoing maintenance requires little labor for wind and solar, there are at least 400k US workers currently employed installing wind turbines and solar panels (rooftop and utility scale). That work will eventually run out, but it'll be years, if not decades before enough solar, wind, and other electrical infrastructure has been installed and upgraded to replace all fossil generation. It's as big, as if not bigger, than America's World War 2 efforts.
We should have 5x the number of nuclear plants we have now. Missed opportunity!
I knew I'd read this comment word-for-word before. Is this really necessary?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18795757
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18333727
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17588647
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15127154
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14883557
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14085276
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13962777
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13948427
I stopped looking after the last one, which is almost two years old.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18795757
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18333727
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17588647
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15127154
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14883557
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14085276
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13962777
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13948427
I stopped looking after the last one, which is almost two years old.
The following two twitter threads are more sober look at Solar and Wind.
https://twitter.com/peterzeihan/status/989868124525809664?la...
https://twitter.com/peterzeihan/status/1074644971720986624
https://twitter.com/peterzeihan/status/989868124525809664?la...
https://twitter.com/peterzeihan/status/1074644971720986624
More "wrong in a gloomy way" than "sober" IMO.
He initially says that 500 miles is the limit for practical long distance power transmission.
Transmitting power more than about 500 miles means a load loss of ~10%. The dots on the map represents cities. If the dots aren’t close to a red zone, transmission lost kills solar as a useful input.
That's not true. Siemens quotes losses of 9.4% on a 800 km line for high voltage AC systems, but corresponding DC systems lose 6% at 500 kV or only 2.6% at 800 kV [1]. Look at this list of HVDC projects and sort tables by by Total Length:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HVDC_projects
There are many projects over 805 km (500 miles). The 1362 km Pacific DC Intertie has connected Northwest hydropower to Los Angeles since 1970.
In the second thread he also says "no generation >1k miles from metro regions" (1600 km). I'm not sure why he doubled this "limit" but it's still too low. Brazil already has 2 HVDC lines longer than that. India has 2 under construction. China has 4, with another under construction.
He's wrong when he says "lithium [battery technology] does not charge or discharge fast enough." Compared to what, magic? It's faster than any other mainstream battery technology. It's far faster than combustion based peaking generators. That's why it got its utility market start in frequency regulation applications.
He's wrong about other things too, but it takes a lot longer to refute a Gish Gallop than to dump one out on Twitter. According to his bio he has a couple of books published, and he makes good-looking graphics, so I'd be trying to muck out the Augean stables with a teaspoon here.
[1] https://www.siemens.com/press/pool/de/events/2012/energy/201...
He initially says that 500 miles is the limit for practical long distance power transmission.
Transmitting power more than about 500 miles means a load loss of ~10%. The dots on the map represents cities. If the dots aren’t close to a red zone, transmission lost kills solar as a useful input.
That's not true. Siemens quotes losses of 9.4% on a 800 km line for high voltage AC systems, but corresponding DC systems lose 6% at 500 kV or only 2.6% at 800 kV [1]. Look at this list of HVDC projects and sort tables by by Total Length:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HVDC_projects
There are many projects over 805 km (500 miles). The 1362 km Pacific DC Intertie has connected Northwest hydropower to Los Angeles since 1970.
In the second thread he also says "no generation >1k miles from metro regions" (1600 km). I'm not sure why he doubled this "limit" but it's still too low. Brazil already has 2 HVDC lines longer than that. India has 2 under construction. China has 4, with another under construction.
He's wrong when he says "lithium [battery technology] does not charge or discharge fast enough." Compared to what, magic? It's faster than any other mainstream battery technology. It's far faster than combustion based peaking generators. That's why it got its utility market start in frequency regulation applications.
He's wrong about other things too, but it takes a lot longer to refute a Gish Gallop than to dump one out on Twitter. According to his bio he has a couple of books published, and he makes good-looking graphics, so I'd be trying to muck out the Augean stables with a teaspoon here.
[1] https://www.siemens.com/press/pool/de/events/2012/energy/201...
Those were just a list of obstacles, but there was no honest analysis to speak of despite the boast that he can 'do math'; e.g., the nonsense claims about transmission losses and that solar only makes economic sense in the 'ideal' locations.
What is "cleantech"? It sounds good but I have no idea what it is.
Cleantech is an industry term used to describe products or services that improve operational performance, productivity, or efficiency while reducing costs, inputs, energy consumption, waste, or environmental pollution [0].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_technology#Cleantech
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_technology#Cleantech
If I’m reading this correctly, they are talking about worldwide $160B USD losses, not $160B in US losses only.
Yes, the only thing US-centric about the post is they are using USD for the currency to compare the world-wide damages in multiple countries (USA, Japan, Philippines, Europe).
I dunno if anyone has pointed this out: the article is by a reinsurance company. I don't know why people are making the leap to "cleantech."
[deleted]
Not a word about the 1.2 millions acres burnt in British Columbia, Canada ? That's pretty lame...
To start, here's my favorite climate change joke: "They say we won't act until it's too late... Luckily, it's too late!"
==So what can you do about it?==
I work in cleantech, and you should, too! Solar and wind are economical, so now the biggest issue is scaling them up. That means tons and tons of problem solving, which means great tech and engineering jobs!
If you think about it, the switch to renewables means we need to deal with situations where the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing, yet still keep the lights on. That means you have to build in a ton of storage and load control, which means good communication and analysis, which means software! Something like half of the impact of the energy transition will be done through software optimizing the deployment and operation of clean energy assets.
Anyway, please check out my previous comments on recommendations when looking for climate impact work[1].
Also, working in cleantech can significantly reduce the feelings of hopelessness around disasters. Think of it like exercise. By working at it, your body naturally replaces anxiety with optimism and motivation. Physically doing something to fight your anxiety will make you feel better.
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15127154