4 ms·

We can and act that way... Unfortunately, for most people on earth their CO2 consumption will have to go up significantly for them to have an improved quality o

We can and act that way... Unfortunately, for most people on earth their CO2 consumption will have to go up significantly for them to have an improved quality of life. The large swath of population that doesn't believe in global warming is far less important than the large swath that is anti-nuclear. China, India, etc will need substantial energy to improve their quality of life and their populations are so large relatively to that of the West that marginal improvements in the Wests consumption will have little effect.

endymi0n 7y ago
I used to be pro-nuclear as well, but I‘m not anymore. If you look at fully externalized cost including the consequences of uranium mining and storage of isotopes, renewables plus storage are close to breaking even. Except that even the minimum reactor size (for technical, security and proliferation reasons) mandates extremely large investment in terms of capital and space, which in turn leads to ownership by large intransparent conglomerates, bickering by NIMBYs, clearances, costly audits and years of planning and validation. Renewables plus storage on the other hand just get cheaper by automation and are relatively affordable. Any larger company can afford cash and space for solar on the roof plus a PowerPack in the backyard. Knowledge and learning rate for that track advances at an order of magnitude faster rate than for fission or fusion. In terms of scaling up as quickly as needed, nuclear is dead in the water.
- tick_tock_tick 7y ago
  We are closing in or have hit peak renewable in several states and countries around the world. Unless we figure out a massive improvement to battery technology renewables are not going to help us in the same way they been.
  - endymi0n 7y ago
    [citation needed] Wind power is continuously upgrading due to more possibilities opening with higher turbines, as well as old sites being upgraded. Offshore wind is just getting profitable without subsidies, it's just getting started. Solar is fitting in anywhere and with still falling prices will get ever more cost competitive even at low insulation sites. Storage technology is just getting started as well with many investments from the past 5-10 years now reaching maturity (low-cobalt, silicon, solid state, fuel cells...) You're entitled to your opinion, but I'd be curious as to your sources.
- 08-15 7y ago
  > externalized cost including the consequences of uranium mining and storage of isotopes Please don't lie. Uranium mining is often byproduct mining, and so has little cost. Dedicated uranium mines have little impact, because it is so energy dense. The minimum practical reactor size seems to be around 8MW, or at least it would be if it wasn't for crazy regulations. Much more importantly, the cost of storing used fuel (you say "isotopes", which is thoroughly incorrect terminology) is borne by the utilities, so it is not externalized. Please do not spread lies.
hackeraccount 7y ago
I know it sounds contradictory but poverty is worse for CO2 production then wealth is. The world is in a situation that requires us to grow away from greenhouse gas production. I firmly believe that actions that hurt growth need to be approached with carefully - if X hurts growth but cuts the rate of greenhouse gas emissions it needs to cut them by a large amount - by the same token if Y increases growth and raises greenhouse gas emissions it might make sense if it raises growth by a large amount.

endymi0n 7y ago

I used to be pro-nuclear as well, but I‘m not anymore. If you look at fully externalized cost including the consequences of uranium mining and storage of isotopes, renewables plus storage are close to breaking even. Except that even the minimum reactor size (for technical, security and proliferation reasons) mandates extremely large investment in terms of capital and space, which in turn leads to ownership by large intransparent conglomerates, bickering by NIMBYs, clearances, costly audits and years of planning and validation. Renewables plus storage on the other hand just get cheaper by automation and are relatively affordable. Any larger company can afford cash and space for solar on the roof plus a PowerPack in the backyard. Knowledge and learning rate for that track advances at an order of magnitude faster rate than for fission or fusion. In terms of scaling up as quickly as needed, nuclear is dead in the water.

tick_tock_tick 7y ago
We are closing in or have hit peak renewable in several states and countries around the world. Unless we figure out a massive improvement to battery technology renewables are not going to help us in the same way they been.
- endymi0n 7y ago
  [citation needed] Wind power is continuously upgrading due to more possibilities opening with higher turbines, as well as old sites being upgraded. Offshore wind is just getting profitable without subsidies, it's just getting started. Solar is fitting in anywhere and with still falling prices will get ever more cost competitive even at low insulation sites. Storage technology is just getting started as well with many investments from the past 5-10 years now reaching maturity (low-cobalt, silicon, solid state, fuel cells...) You're entitled to your opinion, but I'd be curious as to your sources.
08-15 7y ago
> externalized cost including the consequences of uranium mining and storage of isotopes Please don't lie. Uranium mining is often byproduct mining, and so has little cost. Dedicated uranium mines have little impact, because it is so energy dense. The minimum practical reactor size seems to be around 8MW, or at least it would be if it wasn't for crazy regulations. Much more importantly, the cost of storing used fuel (you say "isotopes", which is thoroughly incorrect terminology) is borne by the utilities, so it is not externalized. Please do not spread lies.

hackeraccount 7y ago

I know it sounds contradictory but poverty is worse for CO2 production then wealth is. The world is in a situation that requires us to grow away from greenhouse gas production. I firmly believe that actions that hurt growth need to be approached with carefully - if X hurts growth but cuts the rate of greenhouse gas emissions it needs to cut them by a large amount - by the same token if Y increases growth and raises greenhouse gas emissions it might make sense if it raises growth by a large amount.