3 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoI 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.
- yokaze 6y agoI merely wanted to disprove the hypothesis "no other source has the capability to run 24/7/365" by example. I am not making an argument that we should go all-in on hydro power instead. Quite the contrary, I am arguing against a single source of power, but a diversification.
- konjin 6y agoAre you interested in my hamster wheel solution? I'm not arguing that we should go 100% hamster, but not having it be part of the energy mix going forward is dangerous since we need the diversification of energy sources.
- Hammershaft 6y ago> 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. That funding only went to variants of nuclear power that synergized with the military applications that drove that funding in the first place. Molten Salt Reactors have none of the characteristics that enabled Fukushima and yet research was abandoned on them. Regardless, we need to start acting now, and that means choosing solutions that are proven or at least exist today.