4 ms·

No other fuel has the energy density of nuclear, no other source has the capability to run 24/7/365. Renewables are based on the hope that one day we will eith

by konjin 6y ago

No other fuel has the energy density of nuclear, no other source has the capability to run 24/7/365. Renewables are based on the hope that one day we will either had transcontinental grids, which no one has managed to build, or get batteries with energy storage seen only in Star Trek. Nuclear on the other hand has been here for 50 years and could have already solved our CO2 problems. But because it's unfashinable to be pro-science in liberal cities no one has the guts to stand up and say "You're not only wrong but delusional" to the hippies who have as much understanding of energy as flat earthers do of geography. It's ridiculous that the people who say they want to save the earth are the reason why we've locked in a 6th mass extinction already.

cygx 6y ago
Renewables are based on the hope that one day we [...] get batteries with energy storage seen only in Star Trek. You're right that we aren't there yet, but Star Trek level technology is hyperbole. Just to give one example, the German gas grid can store several hundreds TWh of energy, and there are lab results that indicate we might be able to improve power-to-gas-to-power efficiencies to make this viable[1]. [1] https://www.kit.edu/kit/english/pi_2018_009_power-to-gas-with-high-efficiency.php https://www.kit.edu/kit/english/pi_2018_009_power-to-gas-wit...
- edbob 6y ago
  [1] is really interesting, but it is literally burning natural gas with extra steps. How is it better than normal gas generation?
  - cygx 6y ago
    Because you synthesize the gas, there's no net CO2 production.
  - _Microft 6y ago
    The issue with burning natural gas (i.e. from fossil sources) is that it increases the amount of carbon in circulation.
logicchains 6y ago
"Science for me and not for thee!"
pif 6y ago
I can't understand the downvotes you got. You pushed may be a bit on political stereotypes, but other than that you just stated the facts.
- realusername 6y ago
  That's where we are at right now, just stating the energy facts are considered political... There's no realistic scenario at the moment where renewables can be used alone to build a grid for a full country unless you are betting on future tech which doesn't (and might never) exist.
  - cygx 6y ago
    Because it's overstating the facts ("no other source", "seen only in Star Trek", "as much understanding of energy as flat earthers do of geography", "ridiculous"), contradicting any study on the topic I've seen (which, to be fair, might have been a biased sample). This was my take-away when I looked into it a couple of years ago: Going 60% renewable is not much of a problem. 80% needs investment into infrastructure, but still viable. 100% would need better storage technology - or the political will to make cuts: You first need to build enough off-shore windparks, storage and smarter grids to get you through the 'Dunkelflaute' (simultaneous reduced energy production from solar and on-shore wind due to weather conditions, sometimes for weeks!). There's nothing that prevents us from doing so with the technology of today if we're prepared to adjust to uneven levels of power generation, eg by shutting down some industries when production is low, and dumping excess power somewhere when it's high (smelting, scientific experiments, bitcoin mining, whatever).
    - orwin 6y ago
      We don't need 100% renewable, we need 350% renewable. Electricity is at best 25% of our energy usage. 20% of the energy i'm consumming everyday come from nuclear and i'm living in France, where 80% of our power grid is nuclear. And we need the grid investment in copper that comme with it if we want a distributed grid. And a secondary grid to serve hospital and emergency buildings. Oh, and we need Veolia's solar panel recycling plant: its economical, recylce 91 to 95% of the product (granted, the less important part) and it only cost 8 time the raw materials, making it the most efficient solar panel recycling plant (and the only one in the world of its size). It also cost 5 time the energy of raw material extraction and transformation, and weirdly, this is never taken into account when the cost of solar PV is on the table, as if everyone think we can just put lead and cadmium in a landfill. Oh yeah, that's right, we can and we did, nice job us.
yokaze 6y ago
> No other fuel has the energy density of nuclear Irrelevant, unless you want to have a mobile power generator. > no other source has the capability to run 24/7/365. First, not true: Geothermal and hydro both can generate power 24/7/365. Yes, that is location dependent, but you set yourself up there with using absolutes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Iceland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Iceland.) Second, we do not need a single source to deliver 24/7/365, we need "just" a power-mix capable of delivering the changing power-demand over the day. Yes, that is a technical challenge. But nuclear is facing technical challenges too. > Renewables are based on the hope that one day we will either had transcontinental grids, which no one has managed to build, or get batteries with energy storage seen only in Star Trek. Hydro-power can act as energy storage, and it has been here since practical forever: Yes, not an universal solution. And yes, it puts more strain on the grid and requires more management. But I consider your point rather hyperbolical than factual considering the progress made there. > Nuclear on the other hand has been here for 50 years and could have already solved our CO2 problems. Sure, and the only reason we aren't there is because of those hippies. It isn't like half of the research budget since the 50s went to nuclear research, and only 11% to renewables (https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2018/07/09/nuclear-fossil-fuels-have-dominated-federal-energy-rd-spending https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2018/07/09/nuclear-...), most of it after the 70s. It isn't like there are technical and nuclear anti-proliferation reasons why a new nuclear reactor require huge budgets to build and operate. Or that no insurance company in the world will cover the worst-case scenario, and there is always a limited liability of the operator of such plant. I would suggest looking at the amount of resources (money and time) invested in both nuclear power and renewables and how the costs developed respectively over time, when doing your bet on either technology.
- realusername 6y ago
  I strongly doubt there's that many places where you can build some hydro plants which haven't been used yet. At least there's approximately none in Europe. That's fine as a philosophical thought but in reality, all the hydro capacity is already used.
  - 6y ago
audunw 6y ago
> Renewables are based on the hope that one day we will either had transcontinental grids, which no one has managed to build, or get batteries with energy storage seen only in Star Trek. That's absolutely ridiculous. Even with nuclear power, we'll need to produce MASSIVE amounts of hydrogen to cut all carbon emissions. If we have enough renewable hydrogen production plants to make all the hydrogen we need for ships, planes, steel production, farming and fertilizers, we'll have all the energy regulation and storage capability we'll ever need. Seasonal variations in cold climates can be handled better by trash burning facilities. Yeah, recycle/reuse first, but eventually you'll need to get rid of a lot of non-recyclable mixed waste regardless. I feel like people claiming nuclear is essential has never truly thought about the big picture. In my opinion it's a benefit that renewables stimulate more R&D into energy storage. It's a positive synergy, since those solutions are absolutely essential to solving the climate crisis anyway. Unless we invent nuclear reactors we can put on planes and trucks. Now there's a Star Trek level invention!
- Hammershaft 6y ago
  > Seasonal variations in cold climates can be handled better by trash burning facilities. Yeah, recycle/reuse first, but eventually you'll need to get rid of a lot of non-recyclable mixed waste regardless. Do you have any numbers or sources to provide for this claim? > If we have enough renewable hydrogen production plants to make all the hydrogen we need for ships, planes, steel production, farming and fertilizers, we'll have all the energy regulation and storage capability we'll ever need. So your argument is predicated on a future breakthrough in hydrogen production and storage that is so impressive it solves both transportation problems and renewable energy intermittancy? And you argue this is better than using a proven source of baseline energy today?
justatdotin 6y ago
nuclear doesnt run 24/7/365
- opo 6y ago
  It is pretty close to that and very good compared to other sources of power: >...Nuclear has the highest capacity factor of any other energy source—producing reliable, carbon-free power more than 92% of the time in 2016. That’s nearly twice as reliable as a coal (48%) or natural gas (57%) plant and almost 3 times more often than wind (35%) and solar (25%) plants. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/what-generation-capacity https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/what-generation-capacity

by konjin 6y ago

cygx 6y ago

Renewables are based on the hope that one day we [...] get batteries with energy storage seen only in Star Trek. You're right that we aren't there yet, but Star Trek level technology is hyperbole. Just to give one example, the German gas grid can store several hundreds TWh of energy, and there are lab results that indicate we might be able to improve power-to-gas-to-power efficiencies to make this viable[1]. [1] https://www.kit.edu/kit/english/pi_2018_009_power-to-gas-with-high-efficiency.php https://www.kit.edu/kit/english/pi_2018_009_power-to-gas-wit...

edbob 6y ago
[1] is really interesting, but it is literally burning natural gas with extra steps. How is it better than normal gas generation?
- cygx 6y ago
  Because you synthesize the gas, there's no net CO2 production.
- _Microft 6y ago
  The issue with burning natural gas (i.e. from fossil sources) is that it increases the amount of carbon in circulation.

logicchains 6y ago

"Science for me and not for thee!"

pif 6y ago

I can't understand the downvotes you got. You pushed may be a bit on political stereotypes, but other than that you just stated the facts.

realusername 6y ago
That's where we are at right now, just stating the energy facts are considered political... There's no realistic scenario at the moment where renewables can be used alone to build a grid for a full country unless you are betting on future tech which doesn't (and might never) exist.
- cygx 6y ago
  Because it's overstating the facts ("no other source", "seen only in Star Trek", "as much understanding of energy as flat earthers do of geography", "ridiculous"), contradicting any study on the topic I've seen (which, to be fair, might have been a biased sample). This was my take-away when I looked into it a couple of years ago: Going 60% renewable is not much of a problem. 80% needs investment into infrastructure, but still viable. 100% would need better storage technology - or the political will to make cuts: You first need to build enough off-shore windparks, storage and smarter grids to get you through the 'Dunkelflaute' (simultaneous reduced energy production from solar and on-shore wind due to weather conditions, sometimes for weeks!). There's nothing that prevents us from doing so with the technology of today if we're prepared to adjust to uneven levels of power generation, eg by shutting down some industries when production is low, and dumping excess power somewhere when it's high (smelting, scientific experiments, bitcoin mining, whatever).
  - orwin 6y ago
    We don't need 100% renewable, we need 350% renewable. Electricity is at best 25% of our energy usage. 20% of the energy i'm consumming everyday come from nuclear and i'm living in France, where 80% of our power grid is nuclear. And we need the grid investment in copper that comme with it if we want a distributed grid. And a secondary grid to serve hospital and emergency buildings. Oh, and we need Veolia's solar panel recycling plant: its economical, recylce 91 to 95% of the product (granted, the less important part) and it only cost 8 time the raw materials, making it the most efficient solar panel recycling plant (and the only one in the world of its size). It also cost 5 time the energy of raw material extraction and transformation, and weirdly, this is never taken into account when the cost of solar PV is on the table, as if everyone think we can just put lead and cadmium in a landfill. Oh yeah, that's right, we can and we did, nice job us.

yokaze 6y ago

> No other fuel has the energy density of nuclear Irrelevant, unless you want to have a mobile power generator. > no other source has the capability to run 24/7/365. First, not true: Geothermal and hydro both can generate power 24/7/365. Yes, that is location dependent, but you set yourself up there with using absolutes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Iceland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Iceland.) Second, we do not need a single source to deliver 24/7/365, we need "just" a power-mix capable of delivering the changing power-demand over the day. Yes, that is a technical challenge. But nuclear is facing technical challenges too. > Renewables are based on the hope that one day we will either had transcontinental grids, which no one has managed to build, or get batteries with energy storage seen only in Star Trek. Hydro-power can act as energy storage, and it has been here since practical forever: Yes, not an universal solution. And yes, it puts more strain on the grid and requires more management. But I consider your point rather hyperbolical than factual considering the progress made there. > Nuclear on the other hand has been here for 50 years and could have already solved our CO2 problems. Sure, and the only reason we aren't there is because of those hippies. It isn't like half of the research budget since the 50s went to nuclear research, and only 11% to renewables (https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2018/07/09/nuclear-fossil-fuels-have-dominated-federal-energy-rd-spending https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2018/07/09/nuclear-...), most of it after the 70s. It isn't like there are technical and nuclear anti-proliferation reasons why a new nuclear reactor require huge budgets to build and operate. Or that no insurance company in the world will cover the worst-case scenario, and there is always a limited liability of the operator of such plant. I would suggest looking at the amount of resources (money and time) invested in both nuclear power and renewables and how the costs developed respectively over time, when doing your bet on either technology.

realusername 6y ago
I strongly doubt there's that many places where you can build some hydro plants which haven't been used yet. At least there's approximately none in Europe. That's fine as a philosophical thought but in reality, all the hydro capacity is already used.
- 6y ago

audunw 6y ago

> Renewables are based on the hope that one day we will either had transcontinental grids, which no one has managed to build, or get batteries with energy storage seen only in Star Trek. That's absolutely ridiculous. Even with nuclear power, we'll need to produce MASSIVE amounts of hydrogen to cut all carbon emissions. If we have enough renewable hydrogen production plants to make all the hydrogen we need for ships, planes, steel production, farming and fertilizers, we'll have all the energy regulation and storage capability we'll ever need. Seasonal variations in cold climates can be handled better by trash burning facilities. Yeah, recycle/reuse first, but eventually you'll need to get rid of a lot of non-recyclable mixed waste regardless. I feel like people claiming nuclear is essential has never truly thought about the big picture. In my opinion it's a benefit that renewables stimulate more R&D into energy storage. It's a positive synergy, since those solutions are absolutely essential to solving the climate crisis anyway. Unless we invent nuclear reactors we can put on planes and trucks. Now there's a Star Trek level invention!

Hammershaft 6y ago
> Seasonal variations in cold climates can be handled better by trash burning facilities. Yeah, recycle/reuse first, but eventually you'll need to get rid of a lot of non-recyclable mixed waste regardless. Do you have any numbers or sources to provide for this claim? > If we have enough renewable hydrogen production plants to make all the hydrogen we need for ships, planes, steel production, farming and fertilizers, we'll have all the energy regulation and storage capability we'll ever need. So your argument is predicated on a future breakthrough in hydrogen production and storage that is so impressive it solves both transportation problems and renewable energy intermittancy? And you argue this is better than using a proven source of baseline energy today?

justatdotin 6y ago

nuclear doesnt run 24/7/365

opo 6y ago
It is pretty close to that and very good compared to other sources of power: >...Nuclear has the highest capacity factor of any other energy source—producing reliable, carbon-free power more than 92% of the time in 2016. That’s nearly twice as reliable as a coal (48%) or natural gas (57%) plant and almost 3 times more often than wind (35%) and solar (25%) plants. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/what-generation-capacity https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/what-generation-capacity