5 ms·
I have an idea. How about we actually focus on viable alternative energy, like nuclear and hydro, as opposed to feel-good pipe-dreams, like pervasive wind and s
by marcoperaza 10y ago
I have an idea. How about we actually focus on viable alternative energy, like nuclear and hydro, as opposed to feel-good pipe-dreams, like pervasive wind and solar.
- douche 10y agoI agree - I'd love to see more nuclear power, particularly if we could iterate on the reactor design and build ones that are actually safe and efficient, rather than the 60s and 70s models that we're mostly stuck with. The anti-nuclear power movement is one of the great tragedies of the modern age - instead we doubled down on dirty, toxic coal-burners.
- marcoperaza 10y agoWe live in a deeply irrational age. From gluten-free, to anti-vax, to organic, to anti-nuclear, the impassioned ignorance that controls us is mind-boggling.
- creshal 10y agoWe're stuck on unsafe 70s models because safe modern nuclear power plant designs are just not cost effective compared to literally everything else. It's a shame that coal plants aren't held to the same standards, yes; but I'd rather see both replaced.
- badloginagain 10y agoThe 70's models are political compromises. The technology to make nuclear reactors far, far safer has been around for as long as the others have. And while the up-front cost of a nuclear reactor is going to be more than a solar farm, the amount of energy you'll be creating is orders of magnitude greater.
- Retric 10y agothe amount of energy you'll be creating is orders of magnitude greater Try running the numbers vs. 2.5 cents per kWh solar power. Further, nuclear costs more to construct, vastly more to operate, and even more to shut down.
- distances 10y agoI'll just point out the nuclear power plant Olkiluoto 3 which is well behind schedule and estimated to cost €8.5 billion [1]. Sure, the original price tag was €5 billion lower, but it's just the materialized cost that matters in the end. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Unit_3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant#...
- badloginagain 10y agohttp://www.ted.com/talks/michael_shellenberger_how_fear_of_nuclear_power_is_hurting_the_environment http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_shellenberger_how_fear_of_n... A good TED Talk with the speaker going over the data of global green energy supply/demand. China/India's initiatives to build the next generation of nuclear has halted, mainly out of lack of demand and lack of released data. The result has been a net loss of green energy globally, and an even greater loss going forward. Nuclear reactors simply provide more carbon-free energy than other renewables by several orders of magnitude, you simply cannot solve the green energy crisis without a heavy investment in nuclear technology. Unfortunately that investment is hampered by an irrational terror of nuclear energy, even though all the usual candidates for why "nuclear is bad" have been thoroughly and consistently debunked.
- creshal 10y agoNuclear? Safe, cheap: Pick one… at most. Hydro? Only works in very few venues, especially in the developed world. Not to mention the wide-spread ecological damage when you do manage to build one.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- marcoperaza 10y agoI'll tell you what's not cheap: implementing the emissions cuts that governments want us to swallow without nuclear power. We'd have to substantially reduce energy consumption because the politically-acceptable forms of alternative energy simply cannot meet our demand. And we're actually so stupid that these deals allow our geopolitical enemies to continue to grow their emissions while we are forced to cut ours, allowing them to more quickly overtake us in economic and political power. Just another way the greatest civilization in the history of the world is suddenly intent on throwing it all away.
- DennisP 10y agoMolten salt reactors look both safe and cheap. Half a dozen startups are trying to get governments to let them build prototypes.
- creshal 10y agoEven if you can wish away all the problems with the technology (good luck), molten salt reactors are too easy to modify to produce weapons-grade uranium/plutonium. Not something I'd want to see most nations to get their hands on.
- JoeAltmaier 10y agoI think that's just the opposite of the case. They can be built with only traces of plutonium, and its dissolved in tons of sodium salts. Not easy at all.
- deleted 10y ago
- TYPE_FASTER 10y agoCoal could have invested heavily in new tech and beat wind and solar twenty years ago. Nuclear was killed by politics and fear. Hydro is not as clean from an environmental damage perspective as we thought, and there will be a push to undo dams that were built out west. The biggest challenge to wind and solar is energy storage, but there are low tech (gravity storage) ways to tackle those problems.
- Zigurd 10y agoIt's not just fear. The cost of cleaning up Fukushima is itself uncontained and enormous - on the scale of fighting a major war. It's not viable to risk having one power station cause such an expensive problem.
- marcoperaza 10y agoModern reactor designs don't have that risk.
- toomuchtodo 10y agoModern reactors take 10 years and billions of dollars in capital costs that'll take half a century to recover. New nuclear is DOA and existing plants will turn down over the next decade.
- endswapper 10y agoWhy is solar a, "feel-good pipe-dream?" It appears that Elon Musk is implementing an impactful, practical energy alternative driven by solar. I think the long-term view, going beyond the Tesla Master Plan part 2, and combined with Solar City, is a next-generation, green, alternative, renewable energy company. Energy portfolio diversity is important, but as battery and solar capture technology improves it will be one path towards a foundation of renewable energy. Nuclear and hydro, are relevant and important, but why dismiss one of the areas that has far-reaching, clear, practical benefits?
- g52oevr0in 10y agoThere are a lot of great solar projects going on, but I don't think it really helps to bring up Elon Musk.
- crdoconnor 10y agoThe UK just approved a new nuclear power plant (Hinckley point) producing electricity at 9.25 pence per kwh. Wind power generates at ~8 pence per kwh. It literally required greater subsidies than wind farms to be built.
- strictnein 10y agoAnd which produces power 24/7? And actually gets you consistent output? A 300MW wind farm can go from 300MW to 10MW to 200MW to 50MW over the course of an hour or two. It can swing from 300MW to 10MW in 20-30 minutes. I'll pay a little extra for a reliable and predictable energy source.
- badloginagain 10y agoNot to mention Hinkley is going to be outputting way more power than a wind farm. Hinkley is what, 3000MW/H all the time, to a wind farms 300 some of the time?
- yazr 10y agoActually - this 9.25 index-linked (!!) for 35 years (!!) Wind and solar is typically not linked, for 20 years only. It is also planned for 10yrs from now, when most other costs will be lower still. It will end up 50%-100% over onshore wind cost. On the plus side - yet another breathless chapter in the "When will an EPR reactor ever produce actual power" series.
- Retric 10y agoNuclear is way to expensive even with massive subsides. Grid solar is down to ~2.42 cents a kilowatt-hour. Look at that number and think why pay 5 times as much (12+ cents per kwh) for nuclear even after subsidies. Pumped storage is not free, but even with that it's still half as much for 24/7 solar power vs. nuclear power. Solar price from: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-19/cheapest-solar-on-record-said-to-be-offered-for-abu-dhabi http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-19/cheapest-s...
- jonatron 10y agoThe UAE has a lot more solar irradiance and also has cheap empty land, unlike the UK.
- Retric 10y agoUK already get's some electricity from France, getting it from north Africa does not ramp up costs all that much. However, wind is another option, hell double that that to 5 cents per kWh and it's still cheaper. PS: Land costs are less of an issue than you might think as solar does not take that much more land and you can generally use the space under it. Unlike the exclusion zone around nuclear power plants.
- dreistdreist 10y agoPut your solar panels in the exclusion zone. Win/win.
- jonatron 10y agoCurrently wind seems to generate anywhere between 0 and about 5GW. Not reliable enough without vast amounts of storage. http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/ http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
- Retric 10y agoHydro storage is cheap at scale if used daily. Modern wind farms are 40-50% capacity factor in good areas and even better in terms of minimum vs median output. Yes, you will end up wasting some 'extra' power, but without fuel costs that not a significant issue. PS: UK lists 24% capacity factor (av 3.4GW or 9.3% of UK electrical production), which is very usually low and may relate to fudged numbers for installed capacity. Your link also ignores 30% of UK wind production.