3 ms·

The nuclear nimbyism is one of the most erroneous mistakes we have made as a society. Solar and wind can only ever be supplemental and never primary sources of

The nuclear nimbyism is one of the most erroneous mistakes we have made as a society. Solar and wind can only ever be supplemental and never primary sources of energy. We need more nuclear. Maybe this awareness of second order effects has caused analysis paralysis and calcification of progress?

marcosdumay 6y ago
> Solar and wind can only ever be supplemental and never primary sources of energy. I think people will keep repeating this long after the entire world run on solar. The good primary sources of energy all share the characteristic that they can not react fast to changes in demand, so they run most of their time in an anti-economic mode where they cost more than they get in revenue. Coal is getting outcompeted because of that, and nuclear is way slower to react than coal. (Not that it changes much, as nuclear is never competitive anyway.)
- chrisco255 6y ago
  Solar is impractical at many latitudes, especially under cloudy and wintry conditions. With solar you have both an energy storage problem and a surface area problem. Right now, solar benefits from the fact that it is a small fraction of the overall input into the system. It is simply supplemental, so there is no need to store so much excess capacity. However, if solar and wind were the only forms of energy, you would need massive reserves of battery storage both for off-peak (night and low wind conditions) and for longer-term weather conditions. Also, if you get a Mount Tambora like episode, how do you think solar will fare in those conditions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Tambora https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Tambora ? You think it will be able to power our buildings, our vehicles, our factory equipment, etc? Coal is primarily getting outcompeted by natural gas, which is cheaper to extract.
  - marcosdumay 6y ago
    > Also, if you get a Mount Tambora like episode, how do you think solar will fare in those conditions Well, badly. How do you think nuclear would fare? History does not make one optimistic.
    - chrisco255 6y ago
      Why would nuclear suffer at all? It's not affected by weather. We power submarines with nuclear for months at a time.
lokimedes 6y ago
I live under the conviction that exactly the social denunciation of nuclear energy is the key to understanding our current situation. We are riding industrial progress brought about by coal and oil, but we failed to hitch the developmental next train by not going full in on nuclear as it became possible. In essence we have an unsustainable industrial society that has scaled beyond the limits of its base energy source. As unpopular as my view may be, neither solar nor wind or any other Sun-derived energy source belong to the post-fossil era.

marcosdumay 6y ago

> Solar and wind can only ever be supplemental and never primary sources of energy. I think people will keep repeating this long after the entire world run on solar. The good primary sources of energy all share the characteristic that they can not react fast to changes in demand, so they run most of their time in an anti-economic mode where they cost more than they get in revenue. Coal is getting outcompeted because of that, and nuclear is way slower to react than coal. (Not that it changes much, as nuclear is never competitive anyway.)

chrisco255 6y ago
Solar is impractical at many latitudes, especially under cloudy and wintry conditions. With solar you have both an energy storage problem and a surface area problem. Right now, solar benefits from the fact that it is a small fraction of the overall input into the system. It is simply supplemental, so there is no need to store so much excess capacity. However, if solar and wind were the only forms of energy, you would need massive reserves of battery storage both for off-peak (night and low wind conditions) and for longer-term weather conditions. Also, if you get a Mount Tambora like episode, how do you think solar will fare in those conditions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Tambora https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Tambora ? You think it will be able to power our buildings, our vehicles, our factory equipment, etc? Coal is primarily getting outcompeted by natural gas, which is cheaper to extract.
- marcosdumay 6y ago
  > Also, if you get a Mount Tambora like episode, how do you think solar will fare in those conditions Well, badly. How do you think nuclear would fare? History does not make one optimistic.
  - chrisco255 6y ago
    Why would nuclear suffer at all? It's not affected by weather. We power submarines with nuclear for months at a time.

lokimedes 6y ago

I live under the conviction that exactly the social denunciation of nuclear energy is the key to understanding our current situation. We are riding industrial progress brought about by coal and oil, but we failed to hitch the developmental next train by not going full in on nuclear as it became possible. In essence we have an unsustainable industrial society that has scaled beyond the limits of its base energy source. As unpopular as my view may be, neither solar nor wind or any other Sun-derived energy source belong to the post-fossil era.