5 ms·

"best" is relative; what is better, that can scale up sufficiently to meet the world's energy demand? Perhaps renewables can scale up, but last I heard that wa

"best" is relative; what is better, that can scale up sufficiently to meet the world's energy demand? Perhaps renewables can scale up, but last I heard that wasn't realistic on the time scale humanity needs. Does anyone have good information on that question?

stephenr 10y ago
> what is better, that can scale up sufficiently The article specifically mentions that pretty much every major builder of nuclear plants outside of China are in trouble and/or downsizing/restructuring in big ways. So, tell me again how "nuclear can scale up"?
- maxfurman 10y ago
  Nuclear generates a lot more kilowatt-hours per square-foot than renewables, especially in places that aren't very sunny or windy. I am not advocating for a 100% nuclear grid, but I don't see how we can get rid of coal without a decent number of nuclear plants.
  - lutorm 10y ago
    Not a relevant metric. If there's one thing the world has plenty of, it's area.
    - maxfurman 10y ago
      It's very relevant, because a) we need to reserve enough area for people to live, and for growing the food we need, and hopefully for a few parks as well, and b) transmission and storage of electricity across long distances is not trivial. It isn't feasible to, for example, cover the entire surface area of Africa with solar panels and use that energy to power the rest of the world.
      - okreallywtf 10y ago
        That entire thinking is flat out wrong - even if we were 100% solar the idea we won't have any land left to live on is insane [1]. Solar will get more efficient and more dense, to what peak we don't know but even at current efficiency we could more than power the world in unused and unlivable land. [1] http://www.businessinsider.com/map-shows-solar-panels-to-power-the-earth-2015-9 http://www.businessinsider.com/map-shows-solar-panels-to-pow...
      - stephenr 10y ago
        I can put a solar array on my roof. Nobody is/should/can going to live under/close to a nuclear plant.
- hackuser 10y ago
  > pretty much every major builder of nuclear plants outside of China are in trouble and/or downsizing/restructuring in big ways. The proximate cause AFAIK is lack of demand, which depends on politics, which depends on public perception of its danger. It doesn't depend on economics, or at least that's not the immediate problem.
greglindahl 10y ago
Some people have been saying "renewables don't scale" for decades, while renewables steadily beat projections for cost and installed base every year. Here are some example studies of where things could go: http://blog.ucsusa.org/mike-jacobs/suddenly-the-future-is-clear-for-solar-energy http://blog.ucsusa.org/mike-jacobs/suddenly-the-future-is-cl...
- seanmcdirmid 10y ago
  Renewables haven't scaled yet, even if they are making progress. Nuclear is interesting in that we have around 70-90 thousands years of fuel for the plants, which can only get cheaper/safer over time as the technology gets better. Currently, their capital requirements (they are expensive to build even if they are cheap to fuel) and waste problems make them fairly unviable. Couple that with being even less on demand than coal...
  - fnj 10y ago
    Oh come now. 70,000-90,000 years? If the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) has accurately estimated the planet's economically accessible uranium resources, reactors could run more than 200 years at current rates of consumption. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-glo...
    - seanmcdirmid 10y ago
      Not sure why you are being downvoted, since you aren't really wrong. At current technologies and known reserves, you are correct. But their are many technologies that make that number skyrocket. Those numbers are in the 10ky range, and of course, if we ever get fusion going...

stephenr 10y ago

> what is better, that can scale up sufficiently The article specifically mentions that pretty much every major builder of nuclear plants outside of China are in trouble and/or downsizing/restructuring in big ways. So, tell me again how "nuclear can scale up"?

maxfurman 10y ago
Nuclear generates a lot more kilowatt-hours per square-foot than renewables, especially in places that aren't very sunny or windy. I am not advocating for a 100% nuclear grid, but I don't see how we can get rid of coal without a decent number of nuclear plants.
- lutorm 10y ago
  Not a relevant metric. If there's one thing the world has plenty of, it's area.
  - maxfurman 10y ago
    It's very relevant, because a) we need to reserve enough area for people to live, and for growing the food we need, and hopefully for a few parks as well, and b) transmission and storage of electricity across long distances is not trivial. It isn't feasible to, for example, cover the entire surface area of Africa with solar panels and use that energy to power the rest of the world.
    - okreallywtf 10y ago
      That entire thinking is flat out wrong - even if we were 100% solar the idea we won't have any land left to live on is insane [1]. Solar will get more efficient and more dense, to what peak we don't know but even at current efficiency we could more than power the world in unused and unlivable land. [1] http://www.businessinsider.com/map-shows-solar-panels-to-power-the-earth-2015-9 http://www.businessinsider.com/map-shows-solar-panels-to-pow...
    - stephenr 10y ago
      I can put a solar array on my roof. Nobody is/should/can going to live under/close to a nuclear plant.
hackuser 10y ago
> pretty much every major builder of nuclear plants outside of China are in trouble and/or downsizing/restructuring in big ways. The proximate cause AFAIK is lack of demand, which depends on politics, which depends on public perception of its danger. It doesn't depend on economics, or at least that's not the immediate problem.

greglindahl 10y ago

Some people have been saying "renewables don't scale" for decades, while renewables steadily beat projections for cost and installed base every year. Here are some example studies of where things could go: http://blog.ucsusa.org/mike-jacobs/suddenly-the-future-is-clear-for-solar-energy http://blog.ucsusa.org/mike-jacobs/suddenly-the-future-is-cl...

seanmcdirmid 10y ago
Renewables haven't scaled yet, even if they are making progress. Nuclear is interesting in that we have around 70-90 thousands years of fuel for the plants, which can only get cheaper/safer over time as the technology gets better. Currently, their capital requirements (they are expensive to build even if they are cheap to fuel) and waste problems make them fairly unviable. Couple that with being even less on demand than coal...
- fnj 10y ago
  Oh come now. 70,000-90,000 years? If the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) has accurately estimated the planet's economically accessible uranium resources, reactors could run more than 200 years at current rates of consumption. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-glo...
  - seanmcdirmid 10y ago
    Not sure why you are being downvoted, since you aren't really wrong. At current technologies and known reserves, you are correct. But their are many technologies that make that number skyrocket. Those numbers are in the 10ky range, and of course, if we ever get fusion going...