4 ms·
It’s such an interesting debate, because while I think we have solved the technological safety issues (which is what us engineers think of), we have not solved
by brycesbeard 7y ago
It’s such an interesting debate, because while I think we have solved the technological safety issues (which is what us engineers think of), we have not solved the human issues.
I’m reading Midnight in Chernobyl, and while the reactor design was flawed, the problem was created and compounded by just how stupid us humans actually are. Things like the builders not being able to get quality cement, for example - is that a technical problem or a human one?
FWIW, I am pro nuclear. The problem w renewables is they are focused on meeting current energy demand. But growth is based on innovation which is tied with energy use.
In other words, what could we accomplish if we could consume 100x our current amount of energy (with the caveats of clean energy and safety)?
I don’t think renewables are going to get us there.
- pfdietz 7y ago> The problem w renewables is they are focused on meeting current energy demand. What does that even mean? That renewables run into some hard limit beyond current energy consumption? That would be wrong.
- brycesbeard 7y agoIt means I don’t see renewables getting us to a point where people can consume 100x the energy they currently do. Fusion could get us there. OOM increases in energy tend to correspond with huge improvements in quality of life. I don’t see renewables getting ya there.
- pfdietz 7y agoWhy do you not see renewables getting to that point? I see no physical or (soon) economic constraint from them doing so. In particular, the levelized cost of renewables are already much lower than new nuclear fission, and fusion will almost certainly be even more expensive than fission. That advantage will make even use of low efficiency storage more economical than baseload nuclear (fission or fusion) plants.