7 ms·

Sure, maybe that happens. Only an irrational culture would squander an obviously great energy source. But you cannot dispute the massive resources, and square

by Alupis 8y ago

Sure, maybe that happens. Only an irrational culture would squander an obviously great energy source. But you cannot dispute the massive resources, and square footage it requires to accomplish that future of massive wind farms, every building with solar panels installed, and huge battery warehouses littered throughout the nation... especially when compared to a handful of modern Nuclear Reactor Plants. More people die installing Solar Roof Panels than from all the Nuclear energy production combined [1][2][3] [1] https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all... [2] https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/magazines/bulletin/bull21-1/21104091117.pdf https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/magazi... [3] https://asiancorrespondent.com/2011/05/green-deaths-the-forgotten-dangers-of-solar-panels/ https://asiancorrespondent.com/2011/05/green-deaths-the-forg...

toomuchtodo 8y ago
I don’t dispute the land constraints, it’s the economics you can’t argue with. Solar and wind at utility scale are below 2 cents/kWh and falling. Nuclear cannot compete with that in any configuration. You can make roof installs safer (process, hardware), utility installs on the ground are already safe. No one has any place to store nuclear waste, no one will insure it, and no one wants to tie capital up for decades in nuclear generators. Nuclear, like coal, is a wonderful fuel if you can foist all of the externalities on someone else.
- Alupis 8y ago
  The Solar and Wind kWh production doesn't take into account having to store it, which costs additional money. Nuclear didn't become expensive all on it's own... it became expensive after 60+ years of not building new Nuclear plants in the United States and keeping only a few outdated first-generation plants... Modern Nuclear plants are very safe, and very cost effective... and can ramp up or down energy production on demand. Plus, they can be built wherever people want... not just where sunlight or wind patterns are suitable. Solar Roof Panel installation is dangerous because people fall off the roof...yet, that alone has led to more deaths than Nuclear energy production. The U.S. Navy has gone 60 years without a nuclear accident (the entire history since inception of the "Nuclear Navy")... and that's in vehicles (both surface and submarine vessels) designed to be shot, blown up, and sunk in combat. Nuclear is safe, and cost effective. Particularly when considering modern approaches to reactors and spent fuel recycling and storage practices. We, as a nation, are just irrationally afraid of something most people simply don't understand.
  - DuskStar 8y ago
    > The U.S. Navy has gone 60 years without a nuclear accident (the entire history since inception of the "Nuclear Navy")... and that's in vehicles (both surface and submarine vessels) designed to be shot, blown up, and sunk in combat. I think this is especially impressive considering the losses of the USS Thresher [0] and USS Scorpion [1]. Despite their loss, there was still no significant containment breach. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Thresher_(SSN-593) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Thresher_(SSN-593) 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Scorpion_(SSN-589) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Scorpion_(SSN-589)
- merpnderp 8y ago
  For every MW capacity of wind the states around me put in a MW of nat-gas. The reason obviously being that the wind doesn't blow all the time. As for solar, it only really produces 4 hours a day and a cloudy day can cut production in half or more. The only serious solution to our energy needs is nuclear. Everything else requires magical thinking.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - jfrankamp 8y ago
    This just seems like common sense though? There isn't a conflict here that I can see. Use renewables to eliminate some carbon, add natural gas plants (which are cheap and quick to build by comparison) for leveling. Dump coal. Then build nuclear which take a decade or more to replace natural gas plants.
    - imtringued 8y ago
      And those natural gas plants produce less emissions than coal.
icebraining 8y ago
But it's not squandered, just the opposite. Using nuclear (or any other fossil fuel) when you can use a renewable source seems to me like eating the emergency rations on a regular weekend dinner. It only sounds sensible if one doesn't expect us to be around much longer.
- PhasmaFelis 8y ago
  Renewables are better than nuclear, but nuclear is much better than combustion power. We desperately need to drop coal, and it's gonna take a long, long time to reach 100% renewable.
- philwelch 8y ago
  Uranium isn't a fossil fuel, and you're going to run out of land to build solar and wind power collectors on long before you run out of uranium.
  - icebraining 8y ago
    Fair enough, I meant "non-renewable". I don't think that comparison makes much sense; available land limits the power, not the energy.
    - philwelch 8y ago
      How do you store the energy for later? Lithium batteries? What makes lithium more renewable than uranium? Even so, on the long run, power and not energy is what matters. By definition, you need a net power surplus to build up energy stores, because you need to generate energy faster than you are consuming it, and power is merely energy over time.
      - toomuchtodo 8y ago
        Lithium can be extracted from the ocean cost effectively if we had to. It’s effectively limitless.

by Alupis 8y ago

toomuchtodo 8y ago

I don’t dispute the land constraints, it’s the economics you can’t argue with. Solar and wind at utility scale are below 2 cents/kWh and falling. Nuclear cannot compete with that in any configuration. You can make roof installs safer (process, hardware), utility installs on the ground are already safe. No one has any place to store nuclear waste, no one will insure it, and no one wants to tie capital up for decades in nuclear generators. Nuclear, like coal, is a wonderful fuel if you can foist all of the externalities on someone else.

Alupis 8y ago
The Solar and Wind kWh production doesn't take into account having to store it, which costs additional money. Nuclear didn't become expensive all on it's own... it became expensive after 60+ years of not building new Nuclear plants in the United States and keeping only a few outdated first-generation plants... Modern Nuclear plants are very safe, and very cost effective... and can ramp up or down energy production on demand. Plus, they can be built wherever people want... not just where sunlight or wind patterns are suitable. Solar Roof Panel installation is dangerous because people fall off the roof...yet, that alone has led to more deaths than Nuclear energy production. The U.S. Navy has gone 60 years without a nuclear accident (the entire history since inception of the "Nuclear Navy")... and that's in vehicles (both surface and submarine vessels) designed to be shot, blown up, and sunk in combat. Nuclear is safe, and cost effective. Particularly when considering modern approaches to reactors and spent fuel recycling and storage practices. We, as a nation, are just irrationally afraid of something most people simply don't understand.
- DuskStar 8y ago
  > The U.S. Navy has gone 60 years without a nuclear accident (the entire history since inception of the "Nuclear Navy")... and that's in vehicles (both surface and submarine vessels) designed to be shot, blown up, and sunk in combat. I think this is especially impressive considering the losses of the USS Thresher [0] and USS Scorpion [1]. Despite their loss, there was still no significant containment breach. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Thresher_(SSN-593) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Thresher_(SSN-593) 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Scorpion_(SSN-589) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Scorpion_(SSN-589)
merpnderp 8y ago
For every MW capacity of wind the states around me put in a MW of nat-gas. The reason obviously being that the wind doesn't blow all the time. As for solar, it only really produces 4 hours a day and a cloudy day can cut production in half or more. The only serious solution to our energy needs is nuclear. Everything else requires magical thinking.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- jfrankamp 8y ago
  This just seems like common sense though? There isn't a conflict here that I can see. Use renewables to eliminate some carbon, add natural gas plants (which are cheap and quick to build by comparison) for leveling. Dump coal. Then build nuclear which take a decade or more to replace natural gas plants.
  - imtringued 8y ago
    And those natural gas plants produce less emissions than coal.

icebraining 8y ago

But it's not squandered, just the opposite. Using nuclear (or any other fossil fuel) when you can use a renewable source seems to me like eating the emergency rations on a regular weekend dinner. It only sounds sensible if one doesn't expect us to be around much longer.

PhasmaFelis 8y ago
Renewables are better than nuclear, but nuclear is much better than combustion power. We desperately need to drop coal, and it's gonna take a long, long time to reach 100% renewable.
philwelch 8y ago
Uranium isn't a fossil fuel, and you're going to run out of land to build solar and wind power collectors on long before you run out of uranium.
- icebraining 8y ago
  Fair enough, I meant "non-renewable". I don't think that comparison makes much sense; available land limits the power, not the energy.
  - philwelch 8y ago
    How do you store the energy for later? Lithium batteries? What makes lithium more renewable than uranium? Even so, on the long run, power and not energy is what matters. By definition, you need a net power surplus to build up energy stores, because you need to generate energy faster than you are consuming it, and power is merely energy over time.
    - toomuchtodo 8y ago
      Lithium can be extracted from the ocean cost effectively if we had to. It’s effectively limitless.