Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Google Technology

Two Google Engineers Say Renewables Can't Cure Climate Change 652

Posted by timothy from the mined-all-mined dept.
_Sharp'r_ writes Two Stanford PhDs, Ross Koningstein and David Fork, worked for Google on the RE<C project to figure out how to make renewables cheaper than coal and solve climate change. After four years of study they gave up, determining "Renewable energy technologies simply won't work; we need a fundamentally different approach." As a result, is nuclear going to be acknowledged as the future of energy production?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Two Google Engineers Say Renewables Can't Cure Climate Change More

Two Google Engineers Say Renewables Can't Cure Climate Change

Comments Filter:

  • Is Nuclear going to be acknowledged? (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Hopefully it will. We should at least convert our base load power to nuclear as a start.

    • Deliberate (Score:5, Insightful)

      by sycodon ( 149926 ) on Tuesday November 25, 2014 @01:14PM (#48459213)

      Nukes need to move forward in a deliberate manner.

      1. A few reference designs need to be established, accounting for some reasonable subset of possible sites such as coastal, inter coastal, inland, etc.
      2. These designs would be vetted by the Industry, the feds, and what the hell, invite the Greenies.
      3. Once approved, the designs should be exempted fro EPA meddling and some reasonable level of lawsuit immunity...as in the construction can't be delayed decades by lawsuit after lawsuit.
      4. Operators should undergo the same rigorous training as military nuke operators...subs, ships, etc. Not the same, but just as rigorous. We don't need fucking button pushes on the night shift. They have to understand the plant, the theory and they consequences of each action they take.
      5. Parts should be manufactured in factories using standard methods and specifications. Parts should be interchangeable from site to site. Minimize customizations as much as possible.

      The Free Market is great, but this is one of those things he Feds can and should do.

      Oh, and none of this jetting into D.C. for 1 day a month for hearings crap. Get all the experts into the same room and lock the door. Make it into a Manhattan Project kind of thing...get it done and get it done right.

      • Maybe, maybe not. (Score:4, Funny)

        by BarbaraHudson ( 3785311 ) <<barbara.jane.hudson> <at> <icloud.com>> on Tuesday November 25, 2014 @01:53PM (#48459705) Journal
        Maybe nuclear is the way out
        Maybe it's not,
        But to abandon renewables,
        'cuz 2 Guys With The Googles,
        gave up is premature,
        is it not?
        Burma Shave

        • Yeh, a bit of throwing the baby out with the bath water. They gave up because they couldn't make renewables cheaper than coal. However, if you really want to help mitigate(I emphasize mitigate based on the article's information, RTFA) CO2 output, you might be willing to pay more for renewable energy and not have to suffer the economic loss of climate change impact later(that of course being a whole different argument).

          It was a business venture, and they knew it wouldn't succeed based on morals alone. It'

        • They did NOT say to abandon AE. They said that just as certain that global warming is occurring, that it is impossible to solve with only renewables. And considering that the human population increases, as does its demand for more energy, it is obviously impossible to grow AE fast or economical enough. Nukes really have to be added to the mix. Not large ones, but small ones similar to what Babcock has with mpower.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) *

        3. Once approved, the designs should be exempted fro EPA meddling and some reasonable level of lawsuit immunity...as in the construction can't be delayed decades by lawsuit after lawsuit.

        What happens if someone discovers a flaw? So far every reactor design ever built has needed some modification afterwards, due to unforeseen issues. Seems like if there is no way to force companies to make those modifications, like a government agency telling them or affected citizens having the right to sue we will just end up with another Fukushima style accident.

        4. Operators should undergo the same rigorous training as military nuke operators...subs, ships, etc. Not the same, but just as rigorous. We don't need fucking button pushes on the night shift. They have to understand the plant, the theory and they consequences of each action they take.

        That's going to jack the cost up to military levels too then. Probably more, because unlike the military the nuclear plant operators would have t

        • What happens if someone discovers a flaw?

          The person, who has to be an expert and not some lay-person expressing a vague concern, submits the documented problem to the company and relevant safety organization.

          The problem at it's worst was that I could write a letter to the EPA 'What about the 3 dotted tree-frog' and plant construction shuts down for a month before they figure out that the plant isn't even being built on '3 dotted tree-frog' territory. Or I express some crazy concern and again, construction has to stop until they address my 'concer

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Layzej ( 1976930 )
      The answer is probably "all of the above" rather than one thing or the other.

  • Well if two google engineers say so (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    I guess that's it settled then!

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by jythie ( 914043 )
      They did spend a whole 4 years doing it, and their stock options prove they are smarter than ivory tower academics.

    • Re:Well if two google engineers say so (Score:5, Informative)

      by Rei ( 128717 ) on Tuesday November 25, 2014 @01:26PM (#48459367) Homepage

      It's not the engineers' fault; It's rare that I've seen as big of a misrepresentation of an article outside of say Russian state propaganda that I've seen with this Register article. Starting with the title.

      The original article [ieee.org] absolutely, positively does not say in any way, shape or form, "Renewable energy 'simply WON'T WORK'" or "Whatever the future holds, it is not a renewables-powered civilisation: such a thing is impossible."

      The actual article says something very, very different. The engineers went into the project hoping that if we make the incremental improvements to make renewables as cheap as coal, then there will be a mass-switchover to renewables and CO2 levels will be held down. Except that that doesn't work. Why? Because of lead times. People who have existing coal power plants for example aren't just going to take them down because new renewables projects are cheaper than new coal plants. You need to get the price down well below that of coal to where it justifies them throwing their already-invested capital costs out the window. Without doing that, your switchover rate is limited by how fast power plants go offline, which is a very long time. So in their "as cheap as coal" scenario, they only get to a 55% emissions cut by 2050. They were hoping that'd keep the world under 350 ppm. But not only does the world still hit 350 ppm in that scenario, but it continues to rise. Hence, the hypothesis that getting renewables as cheap as coal is sufficient to prevent major climate change is suggested to be wrong.

      What that DOESN'T say in any way, shape or form:

      1) Renewables "WON'T WORK"
      2) Renewables "don't help prevent climate change"
      3) There's no scenario in which renewables can prevent climate change

      What they call for are several changes.

      1) They feel that focusing on preventing emissions with renewables isn't enough, that you need active CO2 scrubbing as well.

      2) They call for renewables investment to adopt the "Google Model": 70% core business, 20% related new business, 10% risky disruptive new technology. This is versus conventional investment which is 90% core business (aka incremental improvements), 9,9% related, and 0,1% disruptive. They think this provides better odds for renewables or other technologies to stop climate change because incrementally improving down to the price of coal - while it'd have a big impact on CO2 emissions rates - still won't keep levels down below 350 ppm.

      Does this even resemble the Register article? Nope. Not even a little bit.

      • Re:Well if two google engineers say so (Score:5, Informative)

        by Bob9113 ( 14996 ) on Tuesday November 25, 2014 @01:41PM (#48459563) Homepage

        TL;DR version: Register.co.uk is a serial clickbaiting site, they admit it [theregister.co.uk], and this article is an intentional, blatant misrepresentation of the research. Link to El Reg only for the same sort of reasons you would link to The National Enquirer.

  • "Renewable energy technologies, as they exist today, simply won't work."
    So, what? We should stop pursuing them altogether?

    • Yes, because apparently technologies don't get developed from inefficient proof of principle prototypes through to efficient production units, but either spring forth fully developed or not at all.

      Nuclear is certainly a good stop gate, but unless we come up with cheap fusion, fission has all sorts of problems; everything from finding fissile materials to getting rid of them.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by schnell ( 163007 )

        Part of the problem here is a very poorly written (or edited) quote in the summary. The relevant quote from TFA is:

        "Trying to combat climate change exclusively with today's renewable energy technologies simply won't work; we need a fundamentally different approach." (emphasis mine)

        They aren't saying that today's renewables aren't good or important. They are saying that by themselves it won't get to where it needs to be, because carbon-emitting forms of energy will always be cheaper than the renewables of to

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Andy Dodd ( 701 )

        This has always been my opinion. We NEED another generation of modernized nuke plants to bridge us until renewables are more mature.

        Trying to mass-deploy renewables now WILL fail. We simply don't have the energy storage technology to do it.

        One more generation of nuclear will bridge the gap. And ideally, during that time, in addition to renewables, work will be done on next-generation nuclear plants that can use the current generation's waste as fuel.

        If I recall correctly, the IFR reactor design in the 19

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by itzly ( 3699663 )
      And when fossil fuels run out, we simply die.
  • Ironically, environmentalists and their 'spooky nuclear' protests is why we are still so reliant on fossil fuels and still pumping carbon into atmosphere. Nuclear technology, especially breeder reactors that produce minimal waste, is how you eliminate emissions. Wind and solar are unsuitable for base load due to variability, and require often non-renewable backups.

    • Ironically, environmentalists and their 'spooky nuclear' protests is why we are still so reliant on fossil fuels and still pumping carbon into atmosphere. Nuclear technology, especially breeder reactors that produce minimal waste, is how you eliminate emissions. Wind and solar are unsuitable for base load due to variability, and require often non-renewable backups.

      while i agree in part, anti-nuclear proponents have a point: nuclear energy is dangerous if not carefully managed and handled. Fukushima and Chernobyl are deadly enough reminders.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by sinij ( 911942 )
        Pumping carbon is even more dangerous. We know inevitable outcome of "do nothing" scenario (catastrophic climate change and/or running out of fossil fuels), we don't know that nuclear disasters are given.
      • Fukushima "deadly"? Please cite a credible source for that.

      • Fukushima and Chernobyl are deadly enough reminders.

        Would it surprise you to learn that the deaths from producing renewables is orders of magnitude higher than the deaths from all the reactor meltdowns combined?

        If so, do a little research and prepare to be surprised.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by PPH ( 736903 )

      especially breeder reactors that produce minimal waste,

      Except that Pres. Carter issued a directive prohibiting reprocessing of nuclear waste. Given that Republicans are willing to overturn anything Obama has done as soon as they are elected to office, I can't imagine why nobody has the balls to overturn the Carter directive and get on with the work at hand.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by sinij ( 911942 )
        Regretfully, so.

        Carter was an engineer, he should have known better.

      • It's because Republicans know a WMD proliferation risk when they see it. They just don't want to talk about it because that would make it look like they agree with the smelly hippie environmentalists.

        If fission power were a viable solution to the world's energy needs, we'd already be selling centrifuges to Iran.

    • You didn't read the article. They're saying we need to go beyond reduction and into carbon capture. Going all nuclear TODAY would not solve the problem.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by sinij ( 911942 )
        First step of getting out of the hole is to stop digging. Moving to all hydro and nuclear for base load is a necessary intermediate step to a complete solution.

    • Wind and solar are unsuitable for base load due to variability

      Sahara disagrees.
      http://www.desertec.org/ [desertec.org]

      Not a perfect solution but a start. There are issues with desert storms and keeping the panels clean (currently done with water, dry cleaning isn't quite there) but if you think about how cars were in the early 1900s... there's hope, to say the least.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) *

      Actually a lot of environmentalists are in favour of nuclear power. It's those investors and their "risk averse" nature that don't want to throw billions of dollars at something that might lose them money, especially when there are better opportunities.

      The UK has to pay power companies to build new nuclear plants, and still only one player is interested. They are that bad of an investment. Nuclear is unsuitable for commercial operation, and always requires government funding to get built.

  • We have the problem that we expect to be able to work whenever we want. But the sun shines brightest and the wind blows hardest at certain times, not all the time. Solution, reduce waste, and work when the energy is available, or find more power storage technologies and install 'em. Either way, big changes in the way energy is handled.

    We're coming to a point where we need less and less workers, but we're expecting to do more and more work. What?

  • If and only if (Score:5, Insightful)

    by i kan reed ( 749298 ) on Tuesday November 25, 2014 @01:02PM (#48459051) Homepage Journal

    You assume that economies can't lose any money in transition.

    This is a flawed idea in that just refuses to consider political action in response. When you can't imagine a government putting the externalized costs of fossil fuels on fossil fuel consumers, this conclusion is a natural one.

    That's not to say a nuclear heavy solution is bad, either. The real amazing thing here is that there are so many solutions that simply require not keeping the status quo, and we can collectively bring outselves to do none of them.

    • And, of course, there's the massive subsidies to fossil fuel companies.

      When you're giving money to the people who produce the fossil fuels, are you really ever going to take meaningful steps to fight climate change?

      The government is proportionally spending MUCH more money on maintaining the fossil fuel industry than it is on alternatives.

      Stop subsidizing the oil companies. See how things change.

      • As someone who sorta agrees with you, the usual claim that fossil fuel industries are subsidized tends to incorporate my above claim that they aren't paying the external costs of their products.

        I don't like to be dishonest about these things.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by khallow ( 566160 )

      This is a flawed idea in that just refuses to consider political action in response. When you can't imagine a government putting the externalized costs of fossil fuels on fossil fuel consumers, this conclusion is a natural one.

      Sure, we can implement behavior changes via political action. But why should we? Also, fossil fuels also have externalized benefits such as cheaper everything due to lower transportation costs. My view is that there isn't a particularly good reason to act right now. But with a few decades of experience we should be able to tell if global warming is a serious problem or not. That should also give us a good idea how long we can push the various fossil fuel industries and may even obsolete a few of the uses fo

      • My view is that there isn't a particularly good reason to act right now. But with a few decades of experience we should be able to tell if global warming is a serious problem or not.

        Ah, the ostrich algorithm.

        Do nothing, pretend like there's no problem, keep on with the status quo for now.

        I'm sure that's great for the fossil fuel industry. Maybe not so good for future generations

        But, hey, as long as quarterly profits and executive bonuses stay high, it's all good, right?

        Unfortunately it means the rest of th

  • What about brick production, which emits massive amounts of CO2? What about declining rain forest and other ecosystems that store CO2? What about undoing the damage that's already been done? What about the positive feedback loops like methane being released from the tundra as it melts? The global climate is way more complex than this, and buying a Prius and high efficiency light bulbs aren't going to cut it by a long shot.

  • So, two guys gave up after four years or study and conclude the whole thing is futile?

    Sure, they're probably smart guys. But, their inability to solve a decades old problem in a few years doesn't mean anything more than they didn't come up with a magic bullet.

    Maybe the problem is the arrogance of Google engineers who think they're going to solve something like this is a short period of time where nobody else has succeeded.

    So, you'll excuse me if I take their sweeping proclamation with a giant grain of salt

  • The two google engineers in question found that if we cut off carbon emission TODAY (like, say, going nuclear) it would already be too late. They were advocating climate engineering, which is to say we need NOT ONLY a cuttoff of carbon emission, but also massive carbon CAPTURE.

    The submitter apparently didn't even read the article this time. How Sad.

  • Their suggestion at the end of the IEEE article is to quit trying to pick winners in energy research. Fund development of known sources, and also fund wild ideas that won't necessarily (but might) lead to a breakthrough. Things like adding ethanol to gasoline and loaning money to politically connected businesses are dead ends.

  • From the IEEE article:
    "As Hansen has shown, if all power plants and industrial facilities switch over to zero-carbon energy sources right now, we’ll still be left with a ruinous amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. It would take centuries for atmospheric levels to return to normal, which means centuries of warming and instability. "

    Their main problem was that fossil fuels are cheaper because the infrastructure is already built and they can dump CO2 into the atmosphere without any cost.
    The easiest way to a

  • It is as if they tried to study energy needs in a vaccuum. Yes, many changes will accompany a change to renewable energy. Getting rid of gasoline and diesel vehicles leaps to mind. Cutting back on the use of large ships is likely and international tourism may be sharply curtailed. Our appliances have been changing for quite some time already. Your lED monitor burns far less energy than your old tube monitor. We will see homes and buildings with plantings on the roofs or even fish ponds on the roo
  • GAAAAHHH !!! A FLASH OF THE OBVIOUS !!! I CAN'T SEEE !!!!!

    Except, with all the tax money changing hand, plus the political "land grab" taking place, I do not expect any change.
  • Standford: The Harfurd [dilbert.com] of the West Coast.

  • A huge number of environmental problems could be solved if we could just get couples to have only 1 child. One side effect of this would be an aging population and reduction in labor force. But health care improvements and automation could cushion that.

  • Nuclear won't be acknowledged as a solution. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by radtea ( 464814 ) on Tuesday November 25, 2014 @03:02PM (#48460457)

    Nuclear won't be accepted as a solution until people who claim to believe that climate change has the potential to end civilization accept that the only proven technology capable of replacing base-load coal is nuclear, and that climate change is a technological problem, not a social problem.

    This will take a long time.

    The green activist movement is completely dominated by Naiomi Klein-style social engineers who don't care one whit about the environment, but who see it as a useful tool for defeating global capitalism. Thus their opposition to any technological solution to the problem of CO2 emissions whatsoever.

    Now that climate change is increasingly widely acknowledged as a real issue--the Pentagon takes it seriously, can you get realer than that?--the green activist community will increasingly be seen as the major impediment to solving the problem. The question is: will we push these utopian socialists aside quickly enough to save the planet?

Slashdot Top Deals

Our OS who art in CPU, UNIX be thy name. Thy programs run, thy syscalls done, In kernel as it is in user!

Close