3 ms·

That is more of a idealistic fantasy world then a reality. Roof solar and smart grid are incredibly expensive. Why not just look at countries who have already

by nickik 8y ago

That is more of a idealistic fantasy world then a reality. Roof solar and smart grid are incredibly expensive. Why not just look at countries who have already solved the problem. France, Switzerland and Sweden all have essentially zero carbon in energy production. They all use water and nuclear energy. For the US, you can just start replacing goal with nuclear, without the massive cost of the fundamental transformation to the whole energy system and grid. Is the goal to create an idealistic distributed energy system or is the goal to effectively reduce carbon?

jogjayr 8y ago
Is safe storage of the radioactive waste from nuclear plants a solved problem? Even if the current fears about nuclear are overblown (and I'm not convinced that they are) what do you do about waste that remains dangerous for many human lifetimes?
- nickik 8y ago
  > Is safe storage of the radioactive waste from nuclear plants a solved problem? Depends on what you mean by 'solved'. Its not solved in the sense that there is a political solution and agreement. It is solved however in so far as that all scientists and technician agree that there is a simply solution and that the money for that has already been accumulated by fees payed on nuclear energy. We are just now again seeing some progress on this front but sadly this topic has been covered in mountains of shit. > Even if the current fears about nuclear are overblown (and I'm not convinced that they are) what do you do about waste that remains dangerous for many human lifetimes? Actually the whole way we talk about this is wrong. Nuclear 'waste' is not waste in any meaningful sense. It actually contains highly valuable materials. The waste majority of the 'waste' we have now is fuel that can be used in reactors (if we ever manage to build new reactors). Other parts of it can be used for nuclear batteries that we use to explore space, other parts can be used for medical isotopes and the list goes on. There are geological places that have no moved for millions of years and will not for millions of years as far as we can tell. In order for it to endanger lives you would have to come up with incredibly complex story. Nobody has ever died from nuclear waste and its very unlikely that anybody ever will. Compared to solar or coal the waste is far smaller. The output of coal plants is ironically more radioactive then a nuclear plant and ash pile is worse then all nuclear waste combined. Solar leaves behind mountains of electronic waste the then go to childeren in Africa that take them apart and get poisoned. Nuclear has the smallest amount of population or waste compared to any all other technologies. It is by far the safest for human in both cases. It is also the saves form of energy production (including all nuclear disasters) in terms of human lives.
  - pjc50 8y ago
    > Nobody has ever died from nuclear waste and its very unlikely that anybody ever will. This is a very dubious claim given the former Soviet attitude to nuclear leaks.
    - korantu 8y ago
      The 'unlikely anyone will' is quite likely, though, given how much more attention is given to nuclear waste compared to other highly dangerous cemicals. Nuclear scare is the case of zero-risk bias, as by discarding nuclear people are forced to use co2-emitting methids for base load, making global warming and pollution casualties far greater then nuclear ever could. [1] [1] https://www.statista.com/chart/13994/global-deaths-per-energy-source/ https://www.statista.com/chart/13994/global-deaths-per-energ...
    - nickik 8y ago
      That could be true but even then it would likely be because of long term higher statistical risk and a lack of medical care.
- korantu 8y ago
  Several points here: 1. Most waste from nuclear plants is contained, unlike coal/gas. 2. The amount of the waste itself is miniscule, the amount of uranium needed to produce all the energy you will ever use throught your time on this planet will fit in a can of coke [1] - for comparison - as shown for example in [2], it would take 20 tonnes of coal pulverized into atmosphere to get the same amount of energy. 3. Being highly radioactive means decaying fastest, so most dangerous are also the short-lived. 4. Unlike coal/gas, there are many projects to use the waste from nuclear plants to use spent fuel from one kind of plant into another. [3] [1] https://bravenewclimate.com/2010/04/22/ifr-fad-4/ https://bravenewclimate.com/2010/04/22/ifr-fad-4/ [2] https://signatureelectric.ca/blog/how-much-energy-does-the-average-person-use-in-a-lifetime/ https://signatureelectric.ca/blog/how-much-energy-does-the-a... [3] https://www.fastcompany.com/3043099/this-nuclear-reactor-eats-nuclear-waste https://www.fastcompany.com/3043099/this-nuclear-reactor-eat...
pjc50 8y ago
> just start replacing goal with nuclear That will take a decade or more before any energy is produced, even assuming a crash programme to build them starting now. Reducing carbon needs to be done in this decade for the Paris agreement targets to be met.
- nickik 8y ago
  Great. And solar/wind have absolutely no change of doing so. Germany has spent years and years with tons of money and their progress is very slow. Had they done nuclear they would be about done by now. Do you have other energy sources that I am not aware of?
nikdaheratik 8y ago
Every time one of these posts go up, I hear the same arguments about nuclear power. The problem is that the utility companies in the US who make the decision about what kind of power plant to build are all backing away from nuclear. And they know more about this than you or I as it is their business to know. These companies have alot of good reasons for doing so, but they all boil down to the overall cost of nuclear being more expensive than any other alternative. Some of this is regulatory, and you can possibly loosen those, but alot of it just has to do with a lack of suitable sites and current plant designs which are based around the idea of providing huge amounts of capacity to large population centers. There are only a few types of utility companies that fit the bill in the US, and they already got one in most cases. Theoretically, you could have designs that provide smaller amounts of power distributed over a wider area, but then you have security concerns, and no matter what design you use, they all require access to a large body of water for cooling purposes, which means you can only make them so small in terms of area. While solar is not able to provide as much energy per plant, it can be scaled to fit the needs of the utility company and doesn't require as much in the way of extra infrastructure and has fewer regulations. So it will always be used by a broader range of electricity providers even if we were to work to replace some coal with equivalent nuclear capacity.

by nickik 8y ago

jogjayr 8y ago

Is safe storage of the radioactive waste from nuclear plants a solved problem? Even if the current fears about nuclear are overblown (and I'm not convinced that they are) what do you do about waste that remains dangerous for many human lifetimes?

nickik 8y ago
> Is safe storage of the radioactive waste from nuclear plants a solved problem? Depends on what you mean by 'solved'. Its not solved in the sense that there is a political solution and agreement. It is solved however in so far as that all scientists and technician agree that there is a simply solution and that the money for that has already been accumulated by fees payed on nuclear energy. We are just now again seeing some progress on this front but sadly this topic has been covered in mountains of shit. > Even if the current fears about nuclear are overblown (and I'm not convinced that they are) what do you do about waste that remains dangerous for many human lifetimes? Actually the whole way we talk about this is wrong. Nuclear 'waste' is not waste in any meaningful sense. It actually contains highly valuable materials. The waste majority of the 'waste' we have now is fuel that can be used in reactors (if we ever manage to build new reactors). Other parts of it can be used for nuclear batteries that we use to explore space, other parts can be used for medical isotopes and the list goes on. There are geological places that have no moved for millions of years and will not for millions of years as far as we can tell. In order for it to endanger lives you would have to come up with incredibly complex story. Nobody has ever died from nuclear waste and its very unlikely that anybody ever will. Compared to solar or coal the waste is far smaller. The output of coal plants is ironically more radioactive then a nuclear plant and ash pile is worse then all nuclear waste combined. Solar leaves behind mountains of electronic waste the then go to childeren in Africa that take them apart and get poisoned. Nuclear has the smallest amount of population or waste compared to any all other technologies. It is by far the safest for human in both cases. It is also the saves form of energy production (including all nuclear disasters) in terms of human lives.
- pjc50 8y ago
  > Nobody has ever died from nuclear waste and its very unlikely that anybody ever will. This is a very dubious claim given the former Soviet attitude to nuclear leaks.
  - korantu 8y ago
    The 'unlikely anyone will' is quite likely, though, given how much more attention is given to nuclear waste compared to other highly dangerous cemicals. Nuclear scare is the case of zero-risk bias, as by discarding nuclear people are forced to use co2-emitting methids for base load, making global warming and pollution casualties far greater then nuclear ever could. [1] [1] https://www.statista.com/chart/13994/global-deaths-per-energy-source/ https://www.statista.com/chart/13994/global-deaths-per-energ...
  - nickik 8y ago
    That could be true but even then it would likely be because of long term higher statistical risk and a lack of medical care.
korantu 8y ago
Several points here: 1. Most waste from nuclear plants is contained, unlike coal/gas. 2. The amount of the waste itself is miniscule, the amount of uranium needed to produce all the energy you will ever use throught your time on this planet will fit in a can of coke [1] - for comparison - as shown for example in [2], it would take 20 tonnes of coal pulverized into atmosphere to get the same amount of energy. 3. Being highly radioactive means decaying fastest, so most dangerous are also the short-lived. 4. Unlike coal/gas, there are many projects to use the waste from nuclear plants to use spent fuel from one kind of plant into another. [3] [1] https://bravenewclimate.com/2010/04/22/ifr-fad-4/ https://bravenewclimate.com/2010/04/22/ifr-fad-4/ [2] https://signatureelectric.ca/blog/how-much-energy-does-the-average-person-use-in-a-lifetime/ https://signatureelectric.ca/blog/how-much-energy-does-the-a... [3] https://www.fastcompany.com/3043099/this-nuclear-reactor-eats-nuclear-waste https://www.fastcompany.com/3043099/this-nuclear-reactor-eat...

pjc50 8y ago

> just start replacing goal with nuclear That will take a decade or more before any energy is produced, even assuming a crash programme to build them starting now. Reducing carbon needs to be done in this decade for the Paris agreement targets to be met.

nickik 8y ago
Great. And solar/wind have absolutely no change of doing so. Germany has spent years and years with tons of money and their progress is very slow. Had they done nuclear they would be about done by now. Do you have other energy sources that I am not aware of?

nikdaheratik 8y ago

Every time one of these posts go up, I hear the same arguments about nuclear power. The problem is that the utility companies in the US who make the decision about what kind of power plant to build are all backing away from nuclear. And they know more about this than you or I as it is their business to know. These companies have alot of good reasons for doing so, but they all boil down to the overall cost of nuclear being more expensive than any other alternative. Some of this is regulatory, and you can possibly loosen those, but alot of it just has to do with a lack of suitable sites and current plant designs which are based around the idea of providing huge amounts of capacity to large population centers. There are only a few types of utility companies that fit the bill in the US, and they already got one in most cases. Theoretically, you could have designs that provide smaller amounts of power distributed over a wider area, but then you have security concerns, and no matter what design you use, they all require access to a large body of water for cooling purposes, which means you can only make them so small in terms of area. While solar is not able to provide as much energy per plant, it can be scaled to fit the needs of the utility company and doesn't require as much in the way of extra infrastructure and has fewer regulations. So it will always be used by a broader range of electricity providers even if we were to work to replace some coal with equivalent nuclear capacity.