4 ms·

I was referring specifically to the rapid Moore's Law-type decreases we've seen in the panels themselves, but upon investigation it looks that the price of batt

by cal5k 8y ago

I was referring specifically to the rapid Moore's Law-type decreases we've seen in the panels themselves, but upon investigation it looks that the price of batteries is decreasing faster than I had realized. So I'll cede that point. Global output of LiPo batteries is still a pittance compared to what would be required to run the world on solar, but there are promising trends there. I should clarify that I'm not against solar as an important part of the energy mix, but it seems incredibly wasteful when we consider the sheer amount of material required in panels + storage to replicate the sustained output of a single fission plant, not all of which can be easily recycled. Solar hasn't historically been widespread enough for us to experience the issues associated with widespread end-of-lifing of components, but one look at the electronics industry and the waste it produces should tell us that it could be a massive problem we're kicking down the road. The sheer amount of material required to run the world on solar energy is staggering. Nuclear waste is comparatively a tiny and easily tractable problem by comparison - all the world's nuclear waste over a 50 year period could probably fit in a single underground site of sufficient volume. There has been plenty of work done on smaller, safer fission reactor designs over the last 50 years, but the regulatory burden to get new designs approved & operational is extremely limiting. There's no way to do it without the support of government as things currently stand, and it's a pity - nuclear could provide 50%+ of the global energy mix emission-free with a relatively small footprint compared to solar, and certainly with far less in the way of materials input between plant construction & fissionable material (the latter producing 24,000,000 kWh from a single KG of U-235).

mikepurvis 8y ago
You might be surprised how much nuclear waste is out there. A bunch of estimates on this thread put it in the "millions of cubic feet" range, which is considerably more than what could fit in a single underground site: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-total-mass-and-volume-of-all-the-stored-nuclear-waste-in-the-world https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-total-mass-and-volume-of-a... Note also that this is mostly just considering high level waste (like, the actual spend fuel rods and reactor parts), and not all low- and intermediate-level waste, of which there is a lot more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#Classification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#Classificati...
- youngtaff 8y ago
  UK estimates that the amount of nuclear wast we'll have (both high and low-level) will be smaller than the volume of one of the UK's national sports stadiums https://nda.blog.gov.uk/2017/04/03/how-much-radioactive-waste-is-there/ https://nda.blog.gov.uk/2017/04/03/how-much-radioactive-wast...
- mrpopo 8y ago
  You are being misleading here. If I follow your link, I read this: Over the past four decades, the entire industry has produced about 62,500 metric tons of used nuclear fuel. That's the high-level waste. The rest of the comment goes on to explain that including all low- and intermediate-level waste, plus legacy waste from military activities, then it may reach the millions of cubic feet you're citing. Low-level waste is not much more dangerous than the extra natural radiation you receive from a plane trip, so the real danger is high-level waste. And that can fit in a fraction of the space required for a single solar park.
toomuchtodo 8y ago
Solar decentralizes and democratizes energy generation. It’s waste (panels, mounts, inverters, wiring) is easily stored, transported, and recycled. It can be rapidly manufactured. There are no proliferation issues. It can be freely given to the third world to obviate their need for fossil or nuclear fuels. Nuclear is worse in every other way except space used, and Earth is huge. I will never understand the fawning over a technology that has proven so lackluster under human control. (Nuclear is fantastic with rigid controls such that the US Navy implements, but this never happens is commercial fleets) Australia will be at 100% renewables before the first nuclear generator would come online if you broke ground today. We should stop mourning nuclear and keep ramping renewables and battery production. The model is proven at scale.
- ZeroGravitas 8y ago
  The main attraction of nuclear, judging by the comments I see is that "silly environmentalists don't like it". It seems the people who bring it up enjoy the thought of other people being wrong more than they enjoy being correct themselves. This was already a little sad, but now that the economic case has turned decisively against nuclear power, with things going badly for basically every nuclear project and things going better than expected for most renewables it's becoming absurd.
  - marshray 8y ago
    Are you kidding? Nukes are great at: 1. Producing large quantities of power 2. Continuously, for several decades 3. Hiding most of the costs until long after those responsible have become unaccountable
  - mrpopo 8y ago
    > The main attraction of nuclear, judging by the comments I see is that "silly environmentalists don't like it". It seems the people who bring it up enjoy the thought of other people being wrong more than they enjoy being correct themselves. Sorry, but you are the one making judgment calls and "enjoying being correct" here. I'm advocating for nuclear power, and I also understand the battle is mostly lost, so please don't act smug like this. Other than the economic case, there are massive hurdles on the way of a 100% renewables world, which I hope will be overcome, since that's obviously the way the world is going forward to now.

by cal5k 8y ago

mikepurvis 8y ago

You might be surprised how much nuclear waste is out there. A bunch of estimates on this thread put it in the "millions of cubic feet" range, which is considerably more than what could fit in a single underground site: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-total-mass-and-volume-of-all-the-stored-nuclear-waste-in-the-world https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-total-mass-and-volume-of-a... Note also that this is mostly just considering high level waste (like, the actual spend fuel rods and reactor parts), and not all low- and intermediate-level waste, of which there is a lot more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#Classification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#Classificati...

youngtaff 8y ago
UK estimates that the amount of nuclear wast we'll have (both high and low-level) will be smaller than the volume of one of the UK's national sports stadiums https://nda.blog.gov.uk/2017/04/03/how-much-radioactive-waste-is-there/ https://nda.blog.gov.uk/2017/04/03/how-much-radioactive-wast...
mrpopo 8y ago
You are being misleading here. If I follow your link, I read this: Over the past four decades, the entire industry has produced about 62,500 metric tons of used nuclear fuel. That's the high-level waste. The rest of the comment goes on to explain that including all low- and intermediate-level waste, plus legacy waste from military activities, then it may reach the millions of cubic feet you're citing. Low-level waste is not much more dangerous than the extra natural radiation you receive from a plane trip, so the real danger is high-level waste. And that can fit in a fraction of the space required for a single solar park.

toomuchtodo 8y ago

Solar decentralizes and democratizes energy generation. It’s waste (panels, mounts, inverters, wiring) is easily stored, transported, and recycled. It can be rapidly manufactured. There are no proliferation issues. It can be freely given to the third world to obviate their need for fossil or nuclear fuels. Nuclear is worse in every other way except space used, and Earth is huge. I will never understand the fawning over a technology that has proven so lackluster under human control. (Nuclear is fantastic with rigid controls such that the US Navy implements, but this never happens is commercial fleets) Australia will be at 100% renewables before the first nuclear generator would come online if you broke ground today. We should stop mourning nuclear and keep ramping renewables and battery production. The model is proven at scale.

ZeroGravitas 8y ago
The main attraction of nuclear, judging by the comments I see is that "silly environmentalists don't like it". It seems the people who bring it up enjoy the thought of other people being wrong more than they enjoy being correct themselves. This was already a little sad, but now that the economic case has turned decisively against nuclear power, with things going badly for basically every nuclear project and things going better than expected for most renewables it's becoming absurd.
- marshray 8y ago
  Are you kidding? Nukes are great at: 1. Producing large quantities of power 2. Continuously, for several decades 3. Hiding most of the costs until long after those responsible have become unaccountable
- mrpopo 8y ago
  > The main attraction of nuclear, judging by the comments I see is that "silly environmentalists don't like it". It seems the people who bring it up enjoy the thought of other people being wrong more than they enjoy being correct themselves. Sorry, but you are the one making judgment calls and "enjoying being correct" here. I'm advocating for nuclear power, and I also understand the battle is mostly lost, so please don't act smug like this. Other than the economic case, there are massive hurdles on the way of a 100% renewables world, which I hope will be overcome, since that's obviously the way the world is going forward to now.