6 ms·

There must be some nuclear company PR firm behind all these nuclear articles. Renewable energy, that's where it is.... we need a manhattan project for it (and

There must be some nuclear company PR firm behind all these nuclear articles. Renewable energy, that's where it is.... we need a manhattan project for it (and how to store excess energy for time periods where the energy (solar, wind) is not available). We can take advantage of the planet getting hotter by harnessing some of that energy.

bra-ket 6y ago
the problem with wind, solar is that manufacturing them in sufficient capacity to replace fossils fuels will create even more pollution. Those billions of solar panels and the materials and energy used to create and recycle them are not coming out of thin air. You have to burn enormous amounts of fossil fuels to generate that energy. It is not sustainable in the long run. Nuclear, because of its extremely high energy density and close to zero emissions, is the best shot we have saving the environment.
- sfkdjf9j3j 6y ago
  You're making it sound like solar and wind cause a net increase in fossil fuels because there are non-renewables involved in their manufacture, but that's simply not a true statement.
  - bra-ket 6y ago
    so do you use a magic wand to bootstrap that manufacturing process?
    - sfkdjf9j3j 6y ago
      No, you use some non-renewables to make solar panels, which then - over their lifetime - replace more non-renewable energy than they cost to make.
    - ncmncm 6y ago
      As the renewable fraction of power production increases, the amount of greenhouse gas released in production of new renewables decreases. Something similar might be true of nuclear, except that emissions per ton of concrete are not going down.
- oblib 6y ago
  They emit nuclear waste and we still have no good way to deal with that. Geological disposal most certainly has long term effects and we really don't even know what those will be.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- jka 6y ago
  Do you have a reference to indicate that the carbon footprint is greater for renewables than nuclear? I tried to find some data on it and discovered this[1] IPCC report which indicates that renewables generally have lower lifetime emissions than nuclear, with the exception of utility-scale photovoltaic solar. (I was surprised that any type of renewable has a larger lifetime emission estimate, so I'm puzzling over the reasons behind that now) Edit: follow-up - also discovered a second report[2] published by the IPCC, which references two separate emissions estimates - one by the IPCC themselves as part of an 'AR5' report, and one published by SSRN (a separate organization). The SSRN estimate indicates that solar photovoltaic (unspecified utility vs residential) is on an equal lifecycle emissions footing with nuclear. [1] - https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_annex-iii.pdf#page=7 https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5... [2] - https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_chapter7.pdf#page=29 https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5...
  - pfdietz 6y ago
    I wonder if they assumed the utility scale solar used concrete footings. There are solar ground mounting systems that use no concrete at all, just steel earth anchors. In any case, CO2 released during construction is a poor metric. What matters is CO2 avoided per $.
sfkdjf9j3j 6y ago
This wikipedia article has some interesting and recent numbers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#BNEF_(2020) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#... That suggests solar and wind are much cheaper than nuclear, globally at least. But maybe that's not accounting for the battery costs necessary to make solar and wind practical for usual patterns of load?
- Gwypaas 6y ago
  Latest Lazard LCOE (Levelized cost of energy) report actually showed that the building new of the cheapest onshore wind is lower than marginal cost of running existing nuclear plants. It also showed that PV+Storage, though with their defined amount, can compete to nuclear new builds. https://www.lazard.com/perspective/lcoe2019 https://www.lazard.com/perspective/lcoe2019
  - jka 6y ago
    NB: There's an updated Lazard report for 2020 (LCOE 14.0) published as of a few days ago: https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-and-levelized-cost-of-storage-2020/ https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-... (it's been posted to HN[1] but without any discussion so far) [1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24837837 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24837837
rbanffy 6y ago
Just check at all the submissions from the user and it'll be clear we have an astroturfing problem.
Krasnol 6y ago
Michael Shellenberger has been pushing his recent book pretty hard recently and it seems they are also trying to gain attention with the anti-intellectuals now after failing with the other side. He has been on Tucker Carlson recently. Besides that Shellenberger bought Zion Lights. A former spokesperson for Extinction Rebellion in the UK.
- pfdietz 6y ago
  Shellenberger was pushing the falsehood that PV uses rare earth elements.

bra-ket 6y ago

the problem with wind, solar is that manufacturing them in sufficient capacity to replace fossils fuels will create even more pollution. Those billions of solar panels and the materials and energy used to create and recycle them are not coming out of thin air. You have to burn enormous amounts of fossil fuels to generate that energy. It is not sustainable in the long run. Nuclear, because of its extremely high energy density and close to zero emissions, is the best shot we have saving the environment.

sfkdjf9j3j 6y ago
You're making it sound like solar and wind cause a net increase in fossil fuels because there are non-renewables involved in their manufacture, but that's simply not a true statement.
- bra-ket 6y ago
  so do you use a magic wand to bootstrap that manufacturing process?
  - sfkdjf9j3j 6y ago
    No, you use some non-renewables to make solar panels, which then - over their lifetime - replace more non-renewable energy than they cost to make.
  - ncmncm 6y ago
    As the renewable fraction of power production increases, the amount of greenhouse gas released in production of new renewables decreases. Something similar might be true of nuclear, except that emissions per ton of concrete are not going down.
oblib 6y ago
They emit nuclear waste and we still have no good way to deal with that. Geological disposal most certainly has long term effects and we really don't even know what those will be.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
jka 6y ago
Do you have a reference to indicate that the carbon footprint is greater for renewables than nuclear? I tried to find some data on it and discovered this[1] IPCC report which indicates that renewables generally have lower lifetime emissions than nuclear, with the exception of utility-scale photovoltaic solar. (I was surprised that any type of renewable has a larger lifetime emission estimate, so I'm puzzling over the reasons behind that now) Edit: follow-up - also discovered a second report[2] published by the IPCC, which references two separate emissions estimates - one by the IPCC themselves as part of an 'AR5' report, and one published by SSRN (a separate organization). The SSRN estimate indicates that solar photovoltaic (unspecified utility vs residential) is on an equal lifecycle emissions footing with nuclear. [1] - https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_annex-iii.pdf#page=7 https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5... [2] - https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_chapter7.pdf#page=29 https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5...
- pfdietz 6y ago
  I wonder if they assumed the utility scale solar used concrete footings. There are solar ground mounting systems that use no concrete at all, just steel earth anchors. In any case, CO2 released during construction is a poor metric. What matters is CO2 avoided per $.

sfkdjf9j3j 6y ago

This wikipedia article has some interesting and recent numbers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#BNEF_(2020) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#... That suggests solar and wind are much cheaper than nuclear, globally at least. But maybe that's not accounting for the battery costs necessary to make solar and wind practical for usual patterns of load?

Gwypaas 6y ago
Latest Lazard LCOE (Levelized cost of energy) report actually showed that the building new of the cheapest onshore wind is lower than marginal cost of running existing nuclear plants. It also showed that PV+Storage, though with their defined amount, can compete to nuclear new builds. https://www.lazard.com/perspective/lcoe2019 https://www.lazard.com/perspective/lcoe2019
- jka 6y ago
  NB: There's an updated Lazard report for 2020 (LCOE 14.0) published as of a few days ago: https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-and-levelized-cost-of-storage-2020/ https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-... (it's been posted to HN[1] but without any discussion so far) [1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24837837 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24837837

rbanffy 6y ago

Just check at all the submissions from the user and it'll be clear we have an astroturfing problem.

Krasnol 6y ago

Michael Shellenberger has been pushing his recent book pretty hard recently and it seems they are also trying to gain attention with the anti-intellectuals now after failing with the other side. He has been on Tucker Carlson recently. Besides that Shellenberger bought Zion Lights. A former spokesperson for Extinction Rebellion in the UK.

pfdietz 6y ago
Shellenberger was pushing the falsehood that PV uses rare earth elements.