One major difference. When coal and then oil ascended they did so because they were a cheaper better source. Alternatives are doing so more for political motives than economics.
“Alternatives are doing so more for political motives than economics.”
Well, not really. The alternative sources are to reduce greenhouse gasses, radioactive messes and other pollutants.
I personally agree that nuclear is the main way forward. I also think coal is hopelessly dirty, but we can live well with a moderate amount of “dirt”.
One major difference. When coal and then oil ascended they did so because they were a cheaper better source. Alternatives are doing so more for political motives than economics.
.............
I don’t disagree with this but imho in a less than a decade solar and wind will reach grid parity. AND eventually they’ll cost less.
However, the real revolution won’t come until energy is 1/4-1/10 the cost of current cheapest coal/natural gas. That will likely come byo some form of nuclear energy. The betas for that are +-5 years off and production is +-10 years off.
I agree with the article’s premise that its an interesting time for energy but not quite for the reasons they give.
One major difference. When coal and then oil ascended they did so because they were a cheaper better source. Alternatives are doing so more for political motives than economics.
................
Agree. But in the next five years of so alternatives will get cheaper. But it will be incremental.
The real energy revolution that will make the 21st century successful is the one that delivers energy for 1/4-1/10 the cost of current cheapest coal and natural gas.
That will come from some form of nuclear. in the near term thorium lftr designs will have betas out in five years and production in 10 years.
I don’t even begin to understand fusion well enough to predict a due date for that technology.