6 ms·

Of course. If Hydro and Geothermal isn't a option, then Nuclear power is the only alternative that can completly remove carbon emissions. Renewables like solar

Of course. If Hydro and Geothermal isn't a option, then Nuclear power is the only alternative that can completly remove carbon emissions. Renewables like solar and wind will always need backup power, which today is either coal, gas, or biofuels (i.e. burn garbage or corn). There is no battery technology today or forthcoming that can power a modern economy overnight or over seasons. There is no other alternative to nuclear. I find it depressing that neither the media, nor the scientific and environmentalist community is never straight about this fact. By the way, here is the energy mix of my home province: http://live.gridwatch.ca/home-page.html http://live.gridwatch.ca/home-page.html When it comes to reducing fossil fuel use for energy generation, outside of gas usage during peak times (and to backup wind deployments), we're almost there. Don't have to wait until 2060 or whatever like Germany was projecting after they closed their Nuclear plants. Don't have to invest in exotic unproven technologies. Don't have to wait for technology innovation to save renewables.

gringoDan 7y ago
"Nuclear power" evokes images of the Chernobyl disaster and mushroom clouds. In reality we should be thinking of France, where ~70% of electricity production comes from nuclear power.
- macspoofing 7y ago
  Yes. The FUD that comes from environmentalists is also a major factor, and it is worse than conservative global warming denialism.
- 24gttghh 7y ago
  "Nuclear power" does evoke France to me. Mis-management and poor safety controls are what Chernobyl evokes for me. It was close to 90% Nuclear a decade ago though. Some of that has been replaced by renewable sources, some by natural gas :( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_France
beobab 7y ago
I think this is an excellent point. The current emotional baggage with nuclear is stopping serious investment into this tech, which I believe has the potential to save the planet. Gen IV nuclear is completely safe from meltdown, and some varieties can consume waste from previous generations, and yet most people (me included) have a visceral reaction to the idea of a plant being built near where we live.
- epistasis 7y ago
  When it comes to nuclear, there are many many sites that would welcome more of it, because the local economy is built around it and the residents don't have the fears you discuss. Instead, what stop nuclear investment is fear of economic disasters, rather than ecological disasters. Nuclear has a horrifying track record when it comes to construction, bankrupting utilities, nearly bankrupting Toshiba, and in general being far too risky to justify the meager returns. If one is investing $10B on a 60 year timeframe, that investment is highly sensitive to changes in the up front cost, especially when those increases up front costs result in no greater revenue. Typical nuclear construction will be 2-3x as costly as anticipated up front, and delayed by many years. It's no surprise that investors don't want to take this risk for very mild returns. Further. Anybody watching tech curves sees that, even 5 years ago, it was clear that using batteries to store wind and solar energy would be cheaper than nuclear very early into the lifespan of any new nuclear facility. This means that the only route to nuclear would 1) a market where nuclear makes all its money for the year in the 4-6 week seasons minimum of intermittent renewables (unlikely), or 2) massive government subsidies that say "we must have nuclear no matter what, and we will pay the market to make that happen." That second route is much more likely to work, for the other governmental benefits of having nuclear (more nuclear engineers for subs and other things).
nathanaldensr 7y ago
The goal for many isn't to actually solve the problem; the goal is instead to send humanity into the dark ages--with "the Chosen" authoritarians ruling us all. They want us to stop using all energy with the unavoidable outcome of the death of millions or even billions, depending on how world-wide their desired energy restrictions become.
- whatshisface 7y ago
  I'm sure at least one rich and powerful person thinks that (beliefs can be pretty diverse in any group of people), but the people posting about their misanthropic animal supremacy on Reddit are not usually the movers and shakers of society.
- adrianN 7y ago
  Those claims have very little to do with reality. Show me the "many" that want humanity to go back to the dark ages.
  - nathanaldensr 7y ago
    I would, except this isn't the forum for those claims. Needless to say, do some browsing of various subreddits and you'll see these opinions--and worse--are indeed shared by many.
    - adrianN 7y ago
      Browse enough forums and you find any opinion you want. That doesn't mean that people holding that opinion make up more than a vanishing fraction of climate activists.
  - prepend 7y ago
    I don’t agree with OP’s point entirely, but the theme of this article sort of supports it. It criticizes a positive step while presenting arguments that have no solution other than making poor people’s power bills go up substantially. For me, it means the proponents are either unable to do arithmetic or don’t care about the results of their arithmetic. There are tons of sites and subreddits talking about ideal world populations drastically lower than today’s. The easiest for me to remember is a monument called the Georgia Guidestones [0] that calls for a sustainable population of 500M. This is certainly a bizarre and rare monument, but it shows that people will spend a lot of money promoting the concept of a much smaller population. I don’t think it’s an evil plan. I just see a combination of indifference toward the poor as evidenced by decisions that raise prices that are acceptable to rich and middle class, but very burdensome to many. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones
adrianN 7y ago
Today's battery technology is good enough for overnight storage when you have a mix of wind and solar and for longer production lows you can use Methane produced by power-to-gas facilities. There is already infrastructure in place to store large amounts of Methane.
- macspoofing 7y ago
  >Today's battery technology is good enough for overnight storage when you have a mix of wind and solar and for longer production lows you can use Methane produced by power-to-gas facilities. No. It isn't. That's why it isn't deployed anywhere. That's why there are no large-scale plans to deploy batteries for that purpose anywhere. >and for longer production lows you can use Methane produced by power-to-gas facilities. Those that suggest solar/wind usually will then invoke some exotic and unproven technology to make the said solar/wind deployment viable.
  - adrianN 7y ago
    It isn't deployed anywhere because it's expensive (just like building new nuclear plants!). That is very different from it not being able to do the job. Power to gas is proven technology. CO2 to Methane plants exist today. See for example this EU project: https://www.storeandgo.info/about-the-project/status-quo/ https://www.storeandgo.info/about-the-project/status-quo/

gringoDan 7y ago

"Nuclear power" evokes images of the Chernobyl disaster and mushroom clouds. In reality we should be thinking of France, where ~70% of electricity production comes from nuclear power.

macspoofing 7y ago
Yes. The FUD that comes from environmentalists is also a major factor, and it is worse than conservative global warming denialism.
24gttghh 7y ago
"Nuclear power" does evoke France to me. Mis-management and poor safety controls are what Chernobyl evokes for me. It was close to 90% Nuclear a decade ago though. Some of that has been replaced by renewable sources, some by natural gas :( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_France

beobab 7y ago

I think this is an excellent point. The current emotional baggage with nuclear is stopping serious investment into this tech, which I believe has the potential to save the planet. Gen IV nuclear is completely safe from meltdown, and some varieties can consume waste from previous generations, and yet most people (me included) have a visceral reaction to the idea of a plant being built near where we live.

epistasis 7y ago
When it comes to nuclear, there are many many sites that would welcome more of it, because the local economy is built around it and the residents don't have the fears you discuss. Instead, what stop nuclear investment is fear of economic disasters, rather than ecological disasters. Nuclear has a horrifying track record when it comes to construction, bankrupting utilities, nearly bankrupting Toshiba, and in general being far too risky to justify the meager returns. If one is investing $10B on a 60 year timeframe, that investment is highly sensitive to changes in the up front cost, especially when those increases up front costs result in no greater revenue. Typical nuclear construction will be 2-3x as costly as anticipated up front, and delayed by many years. It's no surprise that investors don't want to take this risk for very mild returns. Further. Anybody watching tech curves sees that, even 5 years ago, it was clear that using batteries to store wind and solar energy would be cheaper than nuclear very early into the lifespan of any new nuclear facility. This means that the only route to nuclear would 1) a market where nuclear makes all its money for the year in the 4-6 week seasons minimum of intermittent renewables (unlikely), or 2) massive government subsidies that say "we must have nuclear no matter what, and we will pay the market to make that happen." That second route is much more likely to work, for the other governmental benefits of having nuclear (more nuclear engineers for subs and other things).

nathanaldensr 7y ago

The goal for many isn't to actually solve the problem; the goal is instead to send humanity into the dark ages--with "the Chosen" authoritarians ruling us all. They want us to stop using all energy with the unavoidable outcome of the death of millions or even billions, depending on how world-wide their desired energy restrictions become.

whatshisface 7y ago
I'm sure at least one rich and powerful person thinks that (beliefs can be pretty diverse in any group of people), but the people posting about their misanthropic animal supremacy on Reddit are not usually the movers and shakers of society.
adrianN 7y ago
Those claims have very little to do with reality. Show me the "many" that want humanity to go back to the dark ages.
- nathanaldensr 7y ago
  I would, except this isn't the forum for those claims. Needless to say, do some browsing of various subreddits and you'll see these opinions--and worse--are indeed shared by many.
  - adrianN 7y ago
    Browse enough forums and you find any opinion you want. That doesn't mean that people holding that opinion make up more than a vanishing fraction of climate activists.
- prepend 7y ago
  I don’t agree with OP’s point entirely, but the theme of this article sort of supports it. It criticizes a positive step while presenting arguments that have no solution other than making poor people’s power bills go up substantially. For me, it means the proponents are either unable to do arithmetic or don’t care about the results of their arithmetic. There are tons of sites and subreddits talking about ideal world populations drastically lower than today’s. The easiest for me to remember is a monument called the Georgia Guidestones [0] that calls for a sustainable population of 500M. This is certainly a bizarre and rare monument, but it shows that people will spend a lot of money promoting the concept of a much smaller population. I don’t think it’s an evil plan. I just see a combination of indifference toward the poor as evidenced by decisions that raise prices that are acceptable to rich and middle class, but very burdensome to many. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones

adrianN 7y ago

Today's battery technology is good enough for overnight storage when you have a mix of wind and solar and for longer production lows you can use Methane produced by power-to-gas facilities. There is already infrastructure in place to store large amounts of Methane.

macspoofing 7y ago
>Today's battery technology is good enough for overnight storage when you have a mix of wind and solar and for longer production lows you can use Methane produced by power-to-gas facilities. No. It isn't. That's why it isn't deployed anywhere. That's why there are no large-scale plans to deploy batteries for that purpose anywhere. >and for longer production lows you can use Methane produced by power-to-gas facilities. Those that suggest solar/wind usually will then invoke some exotic and unproven technology to make the said solar/wind deployment viable.
- adrianN 7y ago
  It isn't deployed anywhere because it's expensive (just like building new nuclear plants!). That is very different from it not being able to do the job. Power to gas is proven technology. CO2 to Methane plants exist today. See for example this EU project: https://www.storeandgo.info/about-the-project/status-quo/ https://www.storeandgo.info/about-the-project/status-quo/