4 ms·

Ok so you're actually saying that we should not only approve of those, but also pay to change a working grid ? When there's a perfectly vlaid and working soluti

by rakoo 7y ago

Ok so you're actually saying that we should not only approve of those, but also pay to change a working grid ? When there's a perfectly vlaid and working solution ? If it ain't broke, shouldn't we not fix it ?

benj111 7y ago
It is broken, it relies on pumping tonnes of co2 into the atmosphere, so there does clearly need to be a fix. Should the fix be nuclear or something else? That's the question. Nuclear is expensive, slow to build, but worst of all, it doesn't have the political support. Personally I'm not against nuclear, you get someone to build it then I'll support it, but I don't want to spend time talking other people round to the idea when we could and should be doing something now.
- rakoo 7y ago
  Yep, here's the central point of contention: do we build nuclear that emits little CO2 but needs public support, or intermittent sources that pollutes tens of times more for an equivalent service ? Is the priority feel-goodness about what we're doing, or actually solving the problem ?
  - benj111 7y ago
    Where's your figure for polluting ten times more? If this is all from (currently) dirty electric grids, then aren't you arguing against cleaning up the grid, because the grid is dirty? That doesn't seem to make much sense.
    - rakoo 7y ago
      My comparison is always solar and wind against nuclear. Here's a very good analysis on solar alone: https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/2015/05/sustainability-off-grid-solar-power.html https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/2015/05/sustainability-off... In short: in the very good case of an insolation of 1900 kWh/m2/year and panels built in Spain (who has a relatively clean electricity), a reliable system of panels+battery will have emitted 85gCO2eq/kWh over its life. If we correct for the more realistic case of 1000kWh/m2/year (the average in Germany) and panels being built in China with its dirty electricity, the system will have emitted 217gCO2eq/kWh. On the US the insolation is higher, at 1700 kWh/m2/year, so it is going to be around 100gCO2eq/kWh. Here's a map of insulations here: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/Global_Map_of_Global_Horizontal_Radiation.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/Global_M... In contrast, nuclear is at 12 gCO2eq/kWh (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_energy_sources https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_em...). The disaster that solar is should be clear for everyone.
      - benj111 7y ago
        Your figures are measuring different things. The lowtechmag link is for an off grid solar and battery combo. Off grid nuclear isn't a thing as far as I'm aware. Whereas the wikipedia link includes comparisons on all generating methods, which I would guess means they're an apples to apples comparison, so that means onshore wind in better than nuclear, offshore wind is as good as, and solar is only 5 times worse. And to restate the point in my last comment, the lowtechmag figures at least are based on a dirty grid, as the grid cleans up and the solar figures improve. Lets assume you get your way and we build out nuclear. Solar's figures will improve and eventually surpass those of nuclear. In that situation would you support moving over to solar?
      - ben_w 7y ago
        Your own link which claims 12 gCO2e/kWh for nuclear also claims 48 gCO2e/kWh for utility scale solar. The same reference also put coal at 820 gCO2e/kWh. Given the two options are: 1) nuclear power in 5-10 years when the reactor is finished, saving nothing for the intervening period and (820-12) = 808 gCO2e/kWh for the next 50 years Or 2) solar power now, saving (820-48) = 772 gCO2e/kWh for the next 30 years, while totally not preventing you from also building nuclear reactors and simultaneously lowering the carbon footprint of any new power plants whose construction involves a lot of electricity… …I think you’re making the good the enemy of the perfect. One is a 98.5% reduction, the other is a “mere” 94.14% reduction, where in both cases we need to also roughly halve non-electric CO2 emissions.

by rakoo 7y ago

benj111 7y ago

It is broken, it relies on pumping tonnes of co2 into the atmosphere, so there does clearly need to be a fix. Should the fix be nuclear or something else? That's the question. Nuclear is expensive, slow to build, but worst of all, it doesn't have the political support. Personally I'm not against nuclear, you get someone to build it then I'll support it, but I don't want to spend time talking other people round to the idea when we could and should be doing something now.

rakoo 7y ago
Yep, here's the central point of contention: do we build nuclear that emits little CO2 but needs public support, or intermittent sources that pollutes tens of times more for an equivalent service ? Is the priority feel-goodness about what we're doing, or actually solving the problem ?
- benj111 7y ago
  Where's your figure for polluting ten times more? If this is all from (currently) dirty electric grids, then aren't you arguing against cleaning up the grid, because the grid is dirty? That doesn't seem to make much sense.
  - rakoo 7y ago
    My comparison is always solar and wind against nuclear. Here's a very good analysis on solar alone: https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/2015/05/sustainability-off-grid-solar-power.html https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/2015/05/sustainability-off... In short: in the very good case of an insolation of 1900 kWh/m2/year and panels built in Spain (who has a relatively clean electricity), a reliable system of panels+battery will have emitted 85gCO2eq/kWh over its life. If we correct for the more realistic case of 1000kWh/m2/year (the average in Germany) and panels being built in China with its dirty electricity, the system will have emitted 217gCO2eq/kWh. On the US the insolation is higher, at 1700 kWh/m2/year, so it is going to be around 100gCO2eq/kWh. Here's a map of insulations here: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/Global_Map_of_Global_Horizontal_Radiation.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/Global_M... In contrast, nuclear is at 12 gCO2eq/kWh (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_energy_sources https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_em...). The disaster that solar is should be clear for everyone.
    - benj111 7y ago
      Your figures are measuring different things. The lowtechmag link is for an off grid solar and battery combo. Off grid nuclear isn't a thing as far as I'm aware. Whereas the wikipedia link includes comparisons on all generating methods, which I would guess means they're an apples to apples comparison, so that means onshore wind in better than nuclear, offshore wind is as good as, and solar is only 5 times worse. And to restate the point in my last comment, the lowtechmag figures at least are based on a dirty grid, as the grid cleans up and the solar figures improve. Lets assume you get your way and we build out nuclear. Solar's figures will improve and eventually surpass those of nuclear. In that situation would you support moving over to solar?
    - ben_w 7y ago
      Your own link which claims 12 gCO2e/kWh for nuclear also claims 48 gCO2e/kWh for utility scale solar. The same reference also put coal at 820 gCO2e/kWh. Given the two options are: 1) nuclear power in 5-10 years when the reactor is finished, saving nothing for the intervening period and (820-12) = 808 gCO2e/kWh for the next 50 years Or 2) solar power now, saving (820-48) = 772 gCO2e/kWh for the next 30 years, while totally not preventing you from also building nuclear reactors and simultaneously lowering the carbon footprint of any new power plants whose construction involves a lot of electricity… …I think you’re making the good the enemy of the perfect. One is a 98.5% reduction, the other is a “mere” 94.14% reduction, where in both cases we need to also roughly halve non-electric CO2 emissions.