6 ms·

Who is going to pay for all this? And wouldn't it be more efficient to spend the money on energy technology that has none of the problems and is carbon-neutral

by beders 7y ago

Who is going to pay for all this? And wouldn't it be more efficient to spend the money on energy technology that has none of the problems and is carbon-neutral? The potential for renewables in the US is fantastic. For solar alone a recent report states: The total estimated annual technical potential in the United States for urban utility-scale PV is 2,232 terawatt-hours (TWh). Full report at https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/51946.pdf https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/51946.pdf

ethbro 7y ago
Minor note: nuclear is carbon neutral too.
- philpem 7y ago
  Secondary minor note: carbon neutral power sources (e.g. wind or solar) also have a carbon cost. It comes from building the damn thing and continuing to maintain it (e.g. new parts, setting up crane access...)
  - goda90 7y ago
    Wind and solar have peaks and valleys of production, requiring some storage to meet demand. Meanwhile, nuclear can be used for carbon sequestration at geoengineering scales when it's not being used by the grid.
    - gdubs 7y ago
      Could you explain a little more? I think you’re saying that if we have carbon sequestration machines but their constraint is that they take a lot of power to run, we can use nuclear to run those machine. Is that right? Or is there some other carbon sequestration potential of nuclear power that I’m missing?
      - ethbro 7y ago
        Believe parent is comparing and contrasting the problems inherent in intermittent renewables vs nuclear. Intermittent renewables (in scenarios shy of wanton overbuilding) result in deficits, which requires energy storage to address. Energy storage (aside from pumped hydro) is pretty carbon-messy. Surplus, on the other hand, can be bled off into energy-negative carbon sequestration. There's obviously lots of other points, but it's mostly fair under economically realistic scenarios.
  - notabee 7y ago
    And building massive, complex nuclear reactors somehow doesn't incur tons of fossil fuel usage? How much carbon is associated with the years' worth of human activity and material supply chain to build a reactor? How about the ongoing maintenance and the carbon footprint of all of the specialized staff to maintain the safety of the reactor? How many scarce nuclear trained specialists must be flown around in fossil fueled planes to inspect reactors? How long does it take to break even, carbon debt wise? How does the carbon usage of the real world dependencies of nuclear measure up to the building and maintenance of solar panels and wind turbines? If you're going to make a minor note about renewables, it's only fair to make the same about nuclear.
    - thomastjeffery 7y ago
      > And building massive, complex nuclear reactors somehow doesn't incur tons of fossil fuel usage? It involves significantly less. Nuclear power generates significantly more energy for the amount of resources used.
darkpuma 7y ago
Who is going to pay for the externalities of the fossil fuel industry? Maybe you will, maybe you won't. But if you have any kids, they certainly will.

by beders 7y ago

ethbro 7y ago

Minor note: nuclear is carbon neutral too.

philpem 7y ago
Secondary minor note: carbon neutral power sources (e.g. wind or solar) also have a carbon cost. It comes from building the damn thing and continuing to maintain it (e.g. new parts, setting up crane access...)
- goda90 7y ago
  Wind and solar have peaks and valleys of production, requiring some storage to meet demand. Meanwhile, nuclear can be used for carbon sequestration at geoengineering scales when it's not being used by the grid.
  - gdubs 7y ago
    Could you explain a little more? I think you’re saying that if we have carbon sequestration machines but their constraint is that they take a lot of power to run, we can use nuclear to run those machine. Is that right? Or is there some other carbon sequestration potential of nuclear power that I’m missing?
    - ethbro 7y ago
      Believe parent is comparing and contrasting the problems inherent in intermittent renewables vs nuclear. Intermittent renewables (in scenarios shy of wanton overbuilding) result in deficits, which requires energy storage to address. Energy storage (aside from pumped hydro) is pretty carbon-messy. Surplus, on the other hand, can be bled off into energy-negative carbon sequestration. There's obviously lots of other points, but it's mostly fair under economically realistic scenarios.
- notabee 7y ago
  And building massive, complex nuclear reactors somehow doesn't incur tons of fossil fuel usage? How much carbon is associated with the years' worth of human activity and material supply chain to build a reactor? How about the ongoing maintenance and the carbon footprint of all of the specialized staff to maintain the safety of the reactor? How many scarce nuclear trained specialists must be flown around in fossil fueled planes to inspect reactors? How long does it take to break even, carbon debt wise? How does the carbon usage of the real world dependencies of nuclear measure up to the building and maintenance of solar panels and wind turbines? If you're going to make a minor note about renewables, it's only fair to make the same about nuclear.
  - thomastjeffery 7y ago
    > And building massive, complex nuclear reactors somehow doesn't incur tons of fossil fuel usage? It involves significantly less. Nuclear power generates significantly more energy for the amount of resources used.

darkpuma 7y ago

Who is going to pay for the externalities of the fossil fuel industry? Maybe you will, maybe you won't. But if you have any kids, they certainly will.