3 ms·

Fossil fuels also create a no-go area - the Earth. Solar and wind are simple, safe, and democratizing technologies, but they aren't without environmental impact

by dTal 8y ago

Fossil fuels also create a no-go area - the Earth. Solar and wind are simple, safe, and democratizing technologies, but they aren't without environmental impact either (you need a lot of land area), and they aren't yet ready to meet the world's energy needs. Nuclear is here now (was here 50 years ago in fact) and, absent an avoidable Chernobyl-type disaster, is the cleanest available energy source. Worth noting that 17 Chernobyl-style RBMK reactors were built and have largely operated without incident. Lithuania was entirely powered by two such reactors until they were shut down in the 2000s, to be replaced by fossil fuels, on the grounds that they lack containment buildings. The EU ponied up nearly a billion Euros for the decommissioning, which I can't help but notice is almost as much as the new Chernobyl sarcophagus. Might it have been cheaper and better to just... build a containment building? Perhaps. But there would never have been the political will for that. The fear of nuclear is doing more damage than nuclear ever did.

pgeorgi 8y ago
> The EU ponied up nearly a billion Euros for the decommissioning, which I can't help but notice is almost as much as the new Chernobyl sarcophagus. It's less than 2/3rds (<1bn vs. 1.56bn) and the new sarcophagus is the (hopefully) last of a series of developments for confinement for a century (ie. there were costs before) while the decommissioning reduces these two reactors to mostly nothing, where the remaining troublesome radioactive material can be long-term stored together with any spent fuel (once there's a proper solution for that which we need, decommissioning or not).
- dTal 8y ago
  To be sure I played a little fast and loose with "almost as much", but to be fair, 1) the decommissioning is unfinished, overbudget, and behind schedule, and 2) building a containment building around a reactor that hasn't already exploded is sure to be much, much cheaper.
jacobush 8y ago
I sort of agree with you, and it might appear like circular reasoning (although it's not really) but what you said just ties into the larger picture - people are not rational. I say, play to our strengths. Massive roll out of solar now - keep nuclear on the table (it's good tech), but don't rely on it to solve a substantial part of short to medium term future energy need. I also think we should plan for the event of "Global Thermonuclear War". Solar deployments and other renewables will fare much better. You can count on any centralized structures being targeted. That means (large) nuclear power plants and large hydro installations.
- kortilla 8y ago
  Your stance is just pro fossil fuels though. Advocating for solar without an realistic solution for energy storage is just advocating for burning coal and gas for steady state power. You’re accepting a real threat (global warming) to sustain an imaginary one (nuclear meltdowns of modern plants).
  - tasubotadas 8y ago
    >You’re accepting a real threat (global warming) to sustain an imaginary one (nuclear meltdowns of modern plants). This deserves a lot of upvotes
  - jacobush 8y ago
    I am not trying to sustain anything. I may just have a much more pessimistic outlook on humanity. We can argue pro or con nuclear however much we wan't. A build out large enough to affect global warning, is just not going to happen. I see a combination of battery banks, pumped hydro, but most of all, a movement to a smart grid, where base load just isn't as important as before. Where consumers and producers of electricity can be turned on and off in a way unheard of today.
Retric 8y ago
Lithuania much like France exchanged a lot of electricity with other countries. Nobody has gotten a country close to 100% nuclear becase it’s way to expensive. Wind/Solar don’t fit the demand curve, but they crush Nuclear from a cost perspective. This is making Nuclear non viable as the gap ends up looking more random which is the worst place for Nuclear power. Basicly, if wind/Solar is 50% cheaper than Nuclear having a 30% over supply of wind/Solar still costs less. Resulting in the need for zero power most of the time. In large power grids Hydro power can then fill most to all of these gaps. Nuclear is then competing with storage but it’s costs per kWh go up when it’s spending most of it’s time off.

by dTal 8y ago

pgeorgi 8y ago

> The EU ponied up nearly a billion Euros for the decommissioning, which I can't help but notice is almost as much as the new Chernobyl sarcophagus. It's less than 2/3rds (<1bn vs. 1.56bn) and the new sarcophagus is the (hopefully) last of a series of developments for confinement for a century (ie. there were costs before) while the decommissioning reduces these two reactors to mostly nothing, where the remaining troublesome radioactive material can be long-term stored together with any spent fuel (once there's a proper solution for that which we need, decommissioning or not).

dTal 8y ago
To be sure I played a little fast and loose with "almost as much", but to be fair, 1) the decommissioning is unfinished, overbudget, and behind schedule, and 2) building a containment building around a reactor that hasn't already exploded is sure to be much, much cheaper.

jacobush 8y ago

I sort of agree with you, and it might appear like circular reasoning (although it's not really) but what you said just ties into the larger picture - people are not rational. I say, play to our strengths. Massive roll out of solar now - keep nuclear on the table (it's good tech), but don't rely on it to solve a substantial part of short to medium term future energy need. I also think we should plan for the event of "Global Thermonuclear War". Solar deployments and other renewables will fare much better. You can count on any centralized structures being targeted. That means (large) nuclear power plants and large hydro installations.

kortilla 8y ago
Your stance is just pro fossil fuels though. Advocating for solar without an realistic solution for energy storage is just advocating for burning coal and gas for steady state power. You’re accepting a real threat (global warming) to sustain an imaginary one (nuclear meltdowns of modern plants).
- tasubotadas 8y ago
  >You’re accepting a real threat (global warming) to sustain an imaginary one (nuclear meltdowns of modern plants). This deserves a lot of upvotes
- jacobush 8y ago
  I am not trying to sustain anything. I may just have a much more pessimistic outlook on humanity. We can argue pro or con nuclear however much we wan't. A build out large enough to affect global warning, is just not going to happen. I see a combination of battery banks, pumped hydro, but most of all, a movement to a smart grid, where base load just isn't as important as before. Where consumers and producers of electricity can be turned on and off in a way unheard of today.

Retric 8y ago

Lithuania much like France exchanged a lot of electricity with other countries. Nobody has gotten a country close to 100% nuclear becase it’s way to expensive. Wind/Solar don’t fit the demand curve, but they crush Nuclear from a cost perspective. This is making Nuclear non viable as the gap ends up looking more random which is the worst place for Nuclear power. Basicly, if wind/Solar is 50% cheaper than Nuclear having a 30% over supply of wind/Solar still costs less. Resulting in the need for zero power most of the time. In large power grids Hydro power can then fill most to all of these gaps. Nuclear is then competing with storage but it’s costs per kWh go up when it’s spending most of it’s time off.