4 ms·
The problem with these renewables over time is that their energy density is fundamentally limited compared to nuclear by physics. We need sustainable _ecologica
by f154hfds 6y ago
The problem with these renewables over time is that their energy density is fundamentally limited compared to nuclear by physics. We need sustainable _ecologically_ friendly energy sources and at scale unfortunately density becomes all important. People can and will quickly point out the ecological nuclear disasters that have occurred. I only say this - be intellectually honest with yourself about those disaster zones _now_. Compare them to the alternatives and think about it. You will also point out - renewables are becoming much more efficient over time! This is true, but there is an enormous asymmetry in investment between renewables and nuclear, so to compare recent efficiency gains of renewables with the current status of nuclear seems unfair. From a purely theoretical level the energy density of nuclear gives many potential environmental benefits:
1. Less raw material: this has a huge impact on society as a whole. Solar panels and wind turbines require a lot of raw materials that must be mined, refined, transported and built on site. Nuclear requires these things too of course, but it is more energy dense - requiring less given similar levels of technological innovation.
2. Less space: I've seen solar panels go up in various institutions around where I live. They're awesome! But many times they replace what once were fields, forests or pasture land. Wind turbines are even worse, always altering the natural landscape. Do _not_ get me wrong - I fully support these renewables, but once again they are not as space efficient as nuclear at scale.
3. Less workers: purely an economic efficiency principle. At scale density matters with respect to cost effectiveness. Given the same innovation and investment as renewables, nuclear can bottom out in a cost effective way that could really reshape our current energy landscape. Renewables have a much higher threshold requiring a higher percentage of our overall economic output to be dedicated to them. This means many other initiatives (like - for example - many other innovations sorely needed to mitigate carbon emissions) simply won't have resources because our society has taken those resources up building less efficient renewables.
- pfdietz 6y agoThe distributed nature of renewables is actually a huge advantage. It means the renewable system is extremely fault tolerant. Not only does that help in operation, but it means installation is much more forgiving of low quality work (so you can use cheap labor that's easy to train). Screw up 1% of the modules in a PV field and output is down 1%. Screw up 1% of the welds in a nuclear power plant and you have a world of pain.
- f154hfds 6y agoThis is a very weak argument for renewables. You have to make the case that nuclear is fundamentally not able to work in a similar way. The very article we're commenting on is demonstrating the more 'distributed' nature a new generation of nuclear power plants can offer. Your other argument about cheap labor is completely ignoring principle 3. above. Saying cheap labor for an industry is _inherently_ good is basically saying we should go back to the dark ages. This is probably the only principle both capitalists and socialists agree on (at least our 21st century brand of socialists that hope for a UBI utopia)! Anti-nuclear has almost taken on a religious fervor that I don't understand. Safety is a property of an implementation, not a fundamental law of nature. Please! We're arguing for the same ultimate goal!
- pfdietz 6y agoIt's not a weak argument at all. The units in renewables are small (for PV, very very small), compared to the units in SMRs. What's more, the consequences of failure of the units in renewables are minor, compared to the consequences in a reactor. It has not been demonstrated that the diseconomy of scale in SMRs is actually tolerable. The experience at NuScale is not providing much comfort there. Of course the lower demand for skilled labor is good. "Civilization advances by increasing the number of things that can be done without thinking about them." The simpler the task, the less training is required, and the faster workers can be brought up to speed. The high skills needed for nuclear work are one of the reasons nuclear builds are in trouble. (You might object to that if you are a skilled laborer feeding off this trough. Well, too bad, the purpose of energy isn't to employ you. You are a cost, not a goal.) Nuclear has taken on an religious fervor that's not based anywhere in reality. Nuclear is demonstrably a failure, yet the proponents are blinded by their dogma.