4 ms·

I've been ardently pro nuclear for decades now. > Renewables + batteries will NEVER supply enough energy NEVER is a long, long time. We definitely need nucle

I've been ardently pro nuclear for decades now. > Renewables + batteries will NEVER supply enough energy NEVER is a long, long time. We definitely need nuclear to step in for quite a while, but it's plausible that we can be completely renewable and non-nuclear some time in the future.

enaaem 5y ago
Some time can be a very long time. The goal of the current administration is to be net zero emission by 2050. If after a certain time, let’s say 2025, there are no major break throughs in storage technology, then we have to start building nuclear plants. It’s good that we are preparing for that scenario right now.
- Diederich 5y ago
  > ... If after a certain time... Why wait? I'm quite aware of the various downsides of nuclear. Yes, it's currently expensive. But one way or another, every functional nuclear power plant displaces several natural gas and coal plants. It's really that simple. If we assume that CH4 and CO2 emissions have a strong chance of being an existential threat to our civilization, then we can make no other option but to embrace nuclear ASAP, even with all of its problems. At the same time, pour funding into research: there's all kinds of fission technologies that show promise in safety, cost and in minimizing byproducts. Even more important, pour funding into batteries and other energy storage technologies. As far as renewables have come, we they have hardly scratched the surface for base load requirements. Except for hydro in some locations.
  - enaaem 5y ago
    The time is just an example. But I see that you get my point. We need concrete climate goals. We can't wait forever for a breakthrough in storage tech to happen "someday". To meet these climate goals, there has to be a deadline, maybe even tomorrow, where we have to place a bet on nuclear.
elicash 5y ago
It seems like everybody is. Obama admin, Trump admin were both pro-nuclear, too. Maybe the issue is that nobody wants it near them?
philwelch 5y ago
I’m curious about the assumptions that lead to that conclusion. I suspect you’re approaching this from a viewpoint of energy austerity; if we only consume so many gigawatts of power, we can sustainably supply that many gigawatts with renewables without needing any nuclear. Sure—but why would that be our goal? Why assume that we wouldn’t have some valuable use for all the energy we can cleanly produce?
- Diederich 5y ago
  > I suspect you’re approaching this from a viewpoint of energy austerity Not really. I'm just saying that all renewable, non-nuclear is possible...some time in the future. Realistically, I think even in some kind of idealized future, there will be a lot of nuclear power in the mix. Hopefully it's safe, low cost and produces minimal harmful byproducts. In truth, if nuclear can get excellent enough, which is a real possibility, then it becomes effectively more clean than solar and wind, right? The energy density is so high, there is a LOT less to build. Given the choice between our land covered in solar panels, wind mills and battery farms, and a few very large but very safe and cost effective nuclear power plants....that choice gets pretty easy in my opinion. But I'll take the former as well, if needed.
  - philwelch 5y ago
    Sounds reasonable enough. > Given the choice between our land covered in solar panels, wind mills and battery farms, and a few very large but very safe and cost effective nuclear power plants....that choice gets pretty easy in my opinion. But I'll take the former as well, if needed. From my perspective, there are a lot of things that become significantly easier to do if we can produce as much energy as possible, ranging from synthesizing liquid fuels from air and water (chemically possible but energy-intensive) to extracting CO2 from the atmosphere and sequestering it in some sterile chemical sludge that we can pump into empty oil wells to large-scale water desalination (combined with removing the salt). And that’s just in the realm of climate change and sustainability—we are also going to need energy to do new things, not just to do the same things we’re doing now with less ecological impact, or even reversing the ecological impacts we’ve already caused. We’re going to find productive uses of energy faster than we’re going to be able to develop the energy production needed to sustain them. So I’m not sure we’ll be given the choice—we’ll need to do both. The main difference being that a high amount of nuclear baseload would obviate the need for batteries.

enaaem 5y ago

Some time can be a very long time. The goal of the current administration is to be net zero emission by 2050. If after a certain time, let’s say 2025, there are no major break throughs in storage technology, then we have to start building nuclear plants. It’s good that we are preparing for that scenario right now.

Diederich 5y ago
> ... If after a certain time... Why wait? I'm quite aware of the various downsides of nuclear. Yes, it's currently expensive. But one way or another, every functional nuclear power plant displaces several natural gas and coal plants. It's really that simple. If we assume that CH4 and CO2 emissions have a strong chance of being an existential threat to our civilization, then we can make no other option but to embrace nuclear ASAP, even with all of its problems. At the same time, pour funding into research: there's all kinds of fission technologies that show promise in safety, cost and in minimizing byproducts. Even more important, pour funding into batteries and other energy storage technologies. As far as renewables have come, we they have hardly scratched the surface for base load requirements. Except for hydro in some locations.
- enaaem 5y ago
  The time is just an example. But I see that you get my point. We need concrete climate goals. We can't wait forever for a breakthrough in storage tech to happen "someday". To meet these climate goals, there has to be a deadline, maybe even tomorrow, where we have to place a bet on nuclear.

elicash 5y ago

It seems like everybody is. Obama admin, Trump admin were both pro-nuclear, too. Maybe the issue is that nobody wants it near them?

philwelch 5y ago

I’m curious about the assumptions that lead to that conclusion. I suspect you’re approaching this from a viewpoint of energy austerity; if we only consume so many gigawatts of power, we can sustainably supply that many gigawatts with renewables without needing any nuclear. Sure—but why would that be our goal? Why assume that we wouldn’t have some valuable use for all the energy we can cleanly produce?

Diederich 5y ago
> I suspect you’re approaching this from a viewpoint of energy austerity Not really. I'm just saying that all renewable, non-nuclear is possible...some time in the future. Realistically, I think even in some kind of idealized future, there will be a lot of nuclear power in the mix. Hopefully it's safe, low cost and produces minimal harmful byproducts. In truth, if nuclear can get excellent enough, which is a real possibility, then it becomes effectively more clean than solar and wind, right? The energy density is so high, there is a LOT less to build. Given the choice between our land covered in solar panels, wind mills and battery farms, and a few very large but very safe and cost effective nuclear power plants....that choice gets pretty easy in my opinion. But I'll take the former as well, if needed.
- philwelch 5y ago
  Sounds reasonable enough. > Given the choice between our land covered in solar panels, wind mills and battery farms, and a few very large but very safe and cost effective nuclear power plants....that choice gets pretty easy in my opinion. But I'll take the former as well, if needed. From my perspective, there are a lot of things that become significantly easier to do if we can produce as much energy as possible, ranging from synthesizing liquid fuels from air and water (chemically possible but energy-intensive) to extracting CO2 from the atmosphere and sequestering it in some sterile chemical sludge that we can pump into empty oil wells to large-scale water desalination (combined with removing the salt). And that’s just in the realm of climate change and sustainability—we are also going to need energy to do new things, not just to do the same things we’re doing now with less ecological impact, or even reversing the ecological impacts we’ve already caused. We’re going to find productive uses of energy faster than we’re going to be able to develop the energy production needed to sustain them. So I’m not sure we’ll be given the choice—we’ll need to do both. The main difference being that a high amount of nuclear baseload would obviate the need for batteries.