3 ms·

Solved by nuclear, which is renewable through uranium seawater extraction.

pier25 7y ago
AFAIK uranium is not a renewable energy source since it is finite and does not replenish itself. Am I missing something?
- manfredo 7y ago
  Uranium is dissolved in seawater, which can be extracted [1]. When the portion of uranium in seawater drops, more uranium in the crust gets dissolved into seawater. It's estimated that about 100 billion tons of uranium can be extracted in this method, enough to power humanity for millions of years [2]. If you want to get pedantic, there is a finite amount of fissile material. But the same applies to solar power: there's a finite amount of hydrogen in the sun. Entropy dictates that energy is finite, thus there's no such thing as a truly renewable energy source. 1. https://www.pnnl.gov/news/release.aspx?id=4514 https://www.pnnl.gov/news/release.aspx?id=4514 2. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/07/01/uranium-seawater-extraction-makes-nuclear-power-completely-renewable/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/07/01/uranium-s...
  - pier25 7y ago
    Thanks I didn't know about the possibility of dissolving uranium into seawater.
Obi_Juan_Kenobi 7y ago
Nuclear is an economic un-reality. In theory, with large-scale cooperative government support, nuclear can happen. We can develop the next generation of nuclear infrastructure and have safe and affordable generation. Without that, nuclear is an un-economic pipe-dream that gets more expensive as renewable generation gets more affordable. Realistically, with over-provisioning, grid upgrades, and modest lithium battery storage, renewables can and will scale.
- manfredo 7y ago
  > In theory, with large-scale cooperative government support, nuclear can happen. Not just in theory, France did exactly that and did it successfully. They're paying half the cost of electricity as Germany while emitting less than half as much carbon. South Korea has also made large gains in nuclear power. US nuclear power would have been considerably more cost effective if plants weren't closed before the end of their planned lifecycle - the "nuclear plants are expensive, let's close them" meme is self fulfilling. > Realistically, with over-provisioning, grid upgrades, and modest lithium battery storage, renewables can and will scale. Places like California and Germany have attempted this. They have both realized that efficient storage remains a fantasy and use gas plants to provide energy when intermittent sources do not produce power. Most renewable energy projects are, in reality, combined cycle gas plants supplemented by renewables. This is good, because combined cycle gas plants are much cleaner than the coal plants they are replacing. But they still emit carbon and in Europe's case creates dependency on Russia for energy.
  - philipkglass 7y ago
    California, at least its CAISO grid [1], is more like "renewables supplemented by combined cycle gas plants." The change is fairly recent. Annual real power [2] generated by gas plants in CAISO reached its all time high in 2014 at 11707 MW. In 2014 generation from renewables was only 5418 MW. Renewables have increased and gas has declined every year since. The crossover first happened in 2017 when gas power dipped to 7396 MW and renewables rose to 9671 MW. For 2019, gas is down to 6835 MW (to date) and renewables are up to 10507 MW (also to date). Sorry that I don't have a quick citation for these numbers, but the raw data is here: http://content.caiso.com/green/renewrpt/ http://content.caiso.com/green/renewrpt/ I've downloaded all the daily *.txt files and cobbled together big CSVs from them to track these sorts of statistics. [1] http://www.caiso.com/about/Pages/default.aspx http://www.caiso.com/about/Pages/default.aspx [2] Annual real power meaning number of megawatt hours generated in the year divided by number of hours in the year; this implicitly accounts for differing capacity factors.
    - manfredo 7y ago

AFAIK uranium is not a renewable energy source since it is finite and does not replenish itself. Am I missing something?

manfredo 7y ago
Uranium is dissolved in seawater, which can be extracted [1]. When the portion of uranium in seawater drops, more uranium in the crust gets dissolved into seawater. It's estimated that about 100 billion tons of uranium can be extracted in this method, enough to power humanity for millions of years [2]. If you want to get pedantic, there is a finite amount of fissile material. But the same applies to solar power: there's a finite amount of hydrogen in the sun. Entropy dictates that energy is finite, thus there's no such thing as a truly renewable energy source. 1. https://www.pnnl.gov/news/release.aspx?id=4514 https://www.pnnl.gov/news/release.aspx?id=4514 2. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/07/01/uranium-seawater-extraction-makes-nuclear-power-completely-renewable/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/07/01/uranium-s...
- pier25 7y ago
  Thanks I didn't know about the possibility of dissolving uranium into seawater.

Obi_Juan_Kenobi 7y ago

Nuclear is an economic un-reality. In theory, with large-scale cooperative government support, nuclear can happen. We can develop the next generation of nuclear infrastructure and have safe and affordable generation. Without that, nuclear is an un-economic pipe-dream that gets more expensive as renewable generation gets more affordable. Realistically, with over-provisioning, grid upgrades, and modest lithium battery storage, renewables can and will scale.

manfredo 7y ago
> In theory, with large-scale cooperative government support, nuclear can happen. Not just in theory, France did exactly that and did it successfully. They're paying half the cost of electricity as Germany while emitting less than half as much carbon. South Korea has also made large gains in nuclear power. US nuclear power would have been considerably more cost effective if plants weren't closed before the end of their planned lifecycle - the "nuclear plants are expensive, let's close them" meme is self fulfilling. > Realistically, with over-provisioning, grid upgrades, and modest lithium battery storage, renewables can and will scale. Places like California and Germany have attempted this. They have both realized that efficient storage remains a fantasy and use gas plants to provide energy when intermittent sources do not produce power. Most renewable energy projects are, in reality, combined cycle gas plants supplemented by renewables. This is good, because combined cycle gas plants are much cleaner than the coal plants they are replacing. But they still emit carbon and in Europe's case creates dependency on Russia for energy.
- philipkglass 7y ago
  California, at least its CAISO grid [1], is more like "renewables supplemented by combined cycle gas plants." The change is fairly recent. Annual real power [2] generated by gas plants in CAISO reached its all time high in 2014 at 11707 MW. In 2014 generation from renewables was only 5418 MW. Renewables have increased and gas has declined every year since. The crossover first happened in 2017 when gas power dipped to 7396 MW and renewables rose to 9671 MW. For 2019, gas is down to 6835 MW (to date) and renewables are up to 10507 MW (also to date). Sorry that I don't have a quick citation for these numbers, but the raw data is here: http://content.caiso.com/green/renewrpt/ http://content.caiso.com/green/renewrpt/ I've downloaded all the daily *.txt files and cobbled together big CSVs from them to track these sorts of statistics. [1] http://www.caiso.com/about/Pages/default.aspx http://www.caiso.com/about/Pages/default.aspx [2] Annual real power meaning number of megawatt hours generated in the year divided by number of hours in the year; this implicitly accounts for differing capacity factors.
  - manfredo 7y ago