@kravietz @themactep Pretty sure nobody reasonable claims we can (at the moment) run purely on solar? Sounds a bit like a strawman argument. Either way current consumption levels are impossible to sustain especially at scale, even if we radically increase nuclear share (which im not fundametaly against, but the radical centralisation is also a problem in such a scenario). Every solution has its pros and cons.
@harce @themactep@fosstodon.org
> centralisation
Economy of scale 🤷 We want state-run NHS and public transport because they're the cheapest to run at scale, so why at the same time insist on decentralised energy production, if it's the least effective and most expensive?
@kravietz @harce @themactep because resiliency. If you want economies of scale, go nuclear. If you're going wind+solar, it makes sense to have them run by local communities or even at a lower level.
You want a state-run health system for negotiating power and coordination, since there is a metric shit-ton to coordinate in a health system. Electric grid, while complicated, is a way less complicated problem, easier to have local energy producers.
@rysiek @harce @themactep@fosstodon.org
This dream very much resembles the history of Bitcoin -- "you can run your own node", "you can mint your own coins", "we're all decentralized" and then after a few years you and up with highly centralised oligarchy of a few pools running mostly in one country.
Economy of scale 🤷
The problem with wind and solar is not only that they are variable (so require a centralised buffering) but also they have extremely low surface power density.
Because you only get from 2 W/m2 (wind) to 7 W/m2 (PV), you need really vast area to be able to produce reasonable amount of energy. To put that into scale, a 400 MW off-shore wind farm occupies 70 km2 while a 2000 MW nuclear of gas plant maybe 1 km2.
But apart from rooftop PV, the only scalable option available for decentralisation would be gas co-generation - so basically your in-house gas boiler also produces electricity which it feeds into the grid.
This makes *some* sense for houses which *already* have gas for heating, otherwise it makes none.
Or am I missing something?
@kravietz @harce this is obviously a bit "out there", but:
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/07/breakthrough-in-size-safety-of-a-complete-nuclear-power-module-in-a-shipping-container.html
My point is: there are many ways to skin this cat. And while the role of the national government in regulating and running state-wide infrastructure is crucial, there is value in not summarily dismissing the role of local government or community-level governance, even.
I would prefer a world where as much power(sic!) is in local communities, as possible.
@kravietz @harce @themactep if that happens to the electric grid, you will be proven right, congratulations. Seems like it's worth a try though?
Public transport is a good model precisely because you get stuff that can be done on local level (local city transport - locally-run power generation), and stuff that needs to be done on state level (inter-city transport - power grid, large energy storage, baseline power generation from nuclear etc).