4 ms·

I'm not against nuclear, and I'm not saying renewable are absolutely perfect, but let's break down the claims you're making here as there's a lot to unpick. >W

I'm not against nuclear, and I'm not saying renewable are absolutely perfect, but let's break down the claims you're making here as there's a lot to unpick. >We don't even have a workable way to recycle or decommission photovoltaic solar panels after their useful lifespan Nor do we know how to recycle nuclear waste (since that's what you're comparing it to) At best we know how to store nuclear waste, but we'll only know if we've done a good job in thousands of years so I wouldn't bet on it. You also seem to forget how Uranium is mined in the first place, but mining is involved for solar panels so I'd say they probably compare equitably here. There is however progress in recycling solar panels [1] >Reflector based solar plants and wind plants are causing so much ecological damage that their initial designers and proponents are now advocating against their use What damage are we taking about? The tortoise in the link you gave seem to have been displaced. Sure it's not the best, but I'm sure building a nuclear plant comes with its own side effects, such as warming of the surrounding water, increase in traffic and noise pollution for the local wildlife. >The guys building the Ivanpah solar plant have been walking off their jobs because of the wildlife destruction they were causing There's no mention of that in the link you posted >Wind and solar are a feel-good distraction which fall an order of magnitude short of meeting our projected energy demands. Wind and solar resources can provide an order of magnitude more than what we currently consume. [2] >Nuclear is literally the only path forward No it's not. >Nuclear fusion preferably Not anywhere near being production ready, though the day it is I'm happy to have a fusion boiled cup of tea, heck I'm happy to pay more taxes in order to fund research. >It just hasn't filtered down to become popular opinion for some reason. Maybe because it's not true? [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-solar-recycling/europes-first-solar-panel-recycling-plant-opens-in-france-idUSKBN1JL28Z https://www.reuters.com/article/us-solar-recycling/europes-f... [2] https://www.pnas.org/content/106/27/10933 https://www.pnas.org/content/106/27/10933

kuzehanka 8y ago
> Wind and solar resources can provide an order of magnitude more than what we currently consume. [2] Why are you linking a study that just looks at the potential wind kinetic energy available for conversion? A study that ignores where the bulk of useful wind turbines would need to be built? That ignores the economics and ecological impact? I mean that study is pretty clear about what it's looking at, and it isn't at all what you're implying. "We elected in this study to exclude forested, urban, permanently ice covered, and inland water regions" Uhhhh. Cool, in more breaking news, theoretically if we cleared flora/fauna and covered 1/5 of each continent in solar panels we'd also exceed our energy demand! Did you just google your premise and pick a paper that vaguely seemed like it agrees with your presupposition? Take the time to actually read it. Sorry for ignoring the rest of your gish gallop. I'm sure you understand that it's hard to engage in serious debate with people who scan your entire post for a couple of uncited fragments and latch on to those one by one. If you held yourself to the same standard, your entire comment would need to be broken down line by line and attacked since you have cited nothing. Especially if you're ignoring commonly understood facts like the existence of a nuclear waste disposal cycle, or if you're citing completely unrelated papers without even checking them first.

kuzehanka 8y ago

> Wind and solar resources can provide an order of magnitude more than what we currently consume. [2] Why are you linking a study that just looks at the potential wind kinetic energy available for conversion? A study that ignores where the bulk of useful wind turbines would need to be built? That ignores the economics and ecological impact? I mean that study is pretty clear about what it's looking at, and it isn't at all what you're implying. "We elected in this study to exclude forested, urban, permanently ice covered, and inland water regions" Uhhhh. Cool, in more breaking news, theoretically if we cleared flora/fauna and covered 1/5 of each continent in solar panels we'd also exceed our energy demand! Did you just google your premise and pick a paper that vaguely seemed like it agrees with your presupposition? Take the time to actually read it. Sorry for ignoring the rest of your gish gallop. I'm sure you understand that it's hard to engage in serious debate with people who scan your entire post for a couple of uncited fragments and latch on to those one by one. If you held yourself to the same standard, your entire comment would need to be broken down line by line and attacked since you have cited nothing. Especially if you're ignoring commonly understood facts like the existence of a nuclear waste disposal cycle, or if you're citing completely unrelated papers without even checking them first.