4 ms·

Stop looking at nuclear. (Maybe read up on the nuclear disasters so far and think about that when they install a nuclear power plant in your neighborhood...)

by beders 10y ago

Stop looking at nuclear. (Maybe read up on the nuclear disasters so far and think about that when they install a nuclear power plant in your neighborhood...) Also, again, why bother? https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/how-much-renewable-potential-does-the-u.s.-have https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/how-much-renewa... Vote this down all you like, it doesn't change the facts.

blisterpeanuts 10y ago
The renewables vs. fossil vs. nuclear issues have been debated extensively over the decades. There are two game changers today: fracking and lower-cost solar. Fracking has totally changed the equation. Natural gas has blown away oil and coal in power generation, and solar (when combined with the federal tax incentive) is finally becoming competitive with traditional utilities. Nuclear is appealing for various reasons, mainly the avoidance of combustion and carbon release, and also the technology has advanced greatly since its heyday in the '70s. Pebble reactors, micro reactors, better waste processing are compelling reasons to consider a renewed push into nuclear. But as more residences and commercial buildings adopt solar, and fracked gas (plus vast new gas field discoveries in the Mediterranean and elsewhere) continues to be extremely available and competitive, nuclear looks increasingly like an also-ran. Still, nuclear has a great future in orbital and interplanetary spacecraft, where miniaturization and reliability are paramount, and safety and affordability are secondary (just locate the nuclear plant at the tail end of the ship behind a few feet of shielding).
- ci5er 10y ago
  Also, we have a pretty good idea how far we can practically, economically, push things like solar/wind, IF storage is worked out. The processes of converting photons and wind into electron potential are well understood - it's just math. But, with storage - renewable power is still never going to be "free-ish". More cost-effective than burning hydrocarbons, maybe, but cheaper is not "free". What if we could bootstrap our way to free-ish? To do so, we'd have to develop the technology further than it has been developed so far today - and that's an evolutionary process. It would take decades of sustained R&D. But, the carrot is huge -- one benefit would be that we'd never have to worry about fresh water - anywhere - ever again. Nuclear, then nuclear++, then nuclear+++ offers us this hope, to a degree that renewables do not.
acidburnNSA 10y ago
Nuclear reactors are extremely safe and disasters are very unlikely. Obviously Fukushima and Chernobyl come to mind but so do famous plane crashes. This doesn't mean planes aren't incredibly safe. Net, nukes have saved 1.8 million lives by displacing air pollution deaths. Nuclear is very small footprint. There is 2 million times the energy in a handful of nuclear fuel than in a handful of fossil fuel. If you got all of your primary energy from nukes (electricity, heat, transportation) as an average american for 80 years, you would require 1.5 soda cans of fuel and generate 1.5 soda cans of waste. Comparing that to fossil fuels is a non-argument, nuclear is a clear winner. Comparing to renewables is less straightforward, but consider all the manufacturing and process to build out the facilities to harvest all that unbelievable magnitude of wind and solar. Magnets in turbines and semiconductor additives in solar PV have to come from somewhere, and currently scaling to world-scale is nearly infeasible. Once thin-film solar can be done without rare-earths it might become doable, but will still have a huge huge footprint. Now start asking about energy storage. Imagine a northeastern US winter on one of those icy and cloudy cold nights. Now imagine that lasts a week or two. The storage and/or long-distance transmission is unimaginable. In these conditions, nuclear chugs along beautifully, 24 hours a day, rain or shine. In desert sun with no nearby cooling water, solar kicks ass whereas nuclear is challenged. Renewables and nuclear are both essential to responsibly power human civilization.
- sfifs 10y ago
  I think the problem is the historical fact that cost of negative externalities of nuclear projects don't get built into these projects are borne by tax payers and people with significantly disrupted lives in very short durations. The two big meltdowns Fukushima and Chernobyl have left large areas necessarily depopulated and certainly have raised cancer risks. No one seems to have a realistic end of life plan for nuclear sites and the next generation inherits the problem. If we mandate nuclear plants buy enough insurance cover to deal with Fukushima/ Chernobyl type disasters, they would likely be completely uncompetitive with other power sources.

by beders 10y ago

blisterpeanuts 10y ago

The renewables vs. fossil vs. nuclear issues have been debated extensively over the decades. There are two game changers today: fracking and lower-cost solar. Fracking has totally changed the equation. Natural gas has blown away oil and coal in power generation, and solar (when combined with the federal tax incentive) is finally becoming competitive with traditional utilities. Nuclear is appealing for various reasons, mainly the avoidance of combustion and carbon release, and also the technology has advanced greatly since its heyday in the '70s. Pebble reactors, micro reactors, better waste processing are compelling reasons to consider a renewed push into nuclear. But as more residences and commercial buildings adopt solar, and fracked gas (plus vast new gas field discoveries in the Mediterranean and elsewhere) continues to be extremely available and competitive, nuclear looks increasingly like an also-ran. Still, nuclear has a great future in orbital and interplanetary spacecraft, where miniaturization and reliability are paramount, and safety and affordability are secondary (just locate the nuclear plant at the tail end of the ship behind a few feet of shielding).

ci5er 10y ago
Also, we have a pretty good idea how far we can practically, economically, push things like solar/wind, IF storage is worked out. The processes of converting photons and wind into electron potential are well understood - it's just math. But, with storage - renewable power is still never going to be "free-ish". More cost-effective than burning hydrocarbons, maybe, but cheaper is not "free". What if we could bootstrap our way to free-ish? To do so, we'd have to develop the technology further than it has been developed so far today - and that's an evolutionary process. It would take decades of sustained R&D. But, the carrot is huge -- one benefit would be that we'd never have to worry about fresh water - anywhere - ever again. Nuclear, then nuclear++, then nuclear+++ offers us this hope, to a degree that renewables do not.

acidburnNSA 10y ago

Nuclear reactors are extremely safe and disasters are very unlikely. Obviously Fukushima and Chernobyl come to mind but so do famous plane crashes. This doesn't mean planes aren't incredibly safe. Net, nukes have saved 1.8 million lives by displacing air pollution deaths. Nuclear is very small footprint. There is 2 million times the energy in a handful of nuclear fuel than in a handful of fossil fuel. If you got all of your primary energy from nukes (electricity, heat, transportation) as an average american for 80 years, you would require 1.5 soda cans of fuel and generate 1.5 soda cans of waste. Comparing that to fossil fuels is a non-argument, nuclear is a clear winner. Comparing to renewables is less straightforward, but consider all the manufacturing and process to build out the facilities to harvest all that unbelievable magnitude of wind and solar. Magnets in turbines and semiconductor additives in solar PV have to come from somewhere, and currently scaling to world-scale is nearly infeasible. Once thin-film solar can be done without rare-earths it might become doable, but will still have a huge huge footprint. Now start asking about energy storage. Imagine a northeastern US winter on one of those icy and cloudy cold nights. Now imagine that lasts a week or two. The storage and/or long-distance transmission is unimaginable. In these conditions, nuclear chugs along beautifully, 24 hours a day, rain or shine. In desert sun with no nearby cooling water, solar kicks ass whereas nuclear is challenged. Renewables and nuclear are both essential to responsibly power human civilization.

sfifs 10y ago
I think the problem is the historical fact that cost of negative externalities of nuclear projects don't get built into these projects are borne by tax payers and people with significantly disrupted lives in very short durations. The two big meltdowns Fukushima and Chernobyl have left large areas necessarily depopulated and certainly have raised cancer risks. No one seems to have a realistic end of life plan for nuclear sites and the next generation inherits the problem. If we mandate nuclear plants buy enough insurance cover to deal with Fukushima/ Chernobyl type disasters, they would likely be completely uncompetitive with other power sources.