Hacker News Reader

Comment by yodelshady | Hacker News Reader

I don't fear that.

I *know* that the money I've given to a gas company to cover periods of low wind and solar in the last twelve months has funded those rockets, and the emissions have turned fertile ground into desert, the latter being if anything more lethal.

That is a cold certainty.

And I came off a conference call on battery tech today. So let me say this: anyone who says batteries will replace that blood money is a liar.

View on HN

So you were "on a conference call" and that makes you universally more able to assess current and near-future battery tech better than everyone else in the world combined, and also able to read their minds so as to discern whether they are "liars"?

Those are extraordinary claims. I'd require a bit more support.

My sources have been two large private investment firms, a government agency, and a university research group. None thought that 5% of my countries' GDP - an amount easily enough to fund a permanent comparable nuclear output with the second most inefficient funding structure ever devised - could, at any point in the conceivable future, cover the energy shortfall this week in batteries, even the scientists who are typically financially optimistic. This week has been a 99th-percentile week at worst, more likely 95th.

What was told on the conference call?

Optimised current cells, next-gen cells, and next-next-gen cells are all projected for similar price per kWh (one that makes any storage approach more than "buy us time to spin up a burner" impossible). For the record, that's now what I've heard from:

private market analysts, government strategists, and scientists.

As always, please show me a credible plan that says otherwise. I would be extremely happy to be proven wrong.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com