5 ms·

If we could get away with it, I would prefer if we could stick to options that are not so centralized. Unfortunately the sun doesn't shine everywhere all the t

by natch 5y ago

If we could get away with it, I would prefer if we could stick to options that are not so centralized. Unfortunately the sun doesn't shine everywhere all the time (especially in higher latitudes during their winter), and wind power is not perfect everywhere either, so nuclear will be a necessary evil as part of the mix alongside other low carbon options. I say necessary evil not only because of safety and proliferation issues, both of which can be mitigated by some designs although choice of those designs is not assured, but rather because of central control, large budgets, political lobbying, and the corruption and massive consumer and taxpayer costs that all that tends to bring on.

00deadbeef 5y ago
Rolls-Royce are developing small modular reactors which will help decentralise nuclear power as you’d have fewer small reactors spread over a larger area.
- 00deadbeef 5y ago
  many small reactors*
- p_l 5y ago
  SVBR design has been around since 1995 or so. Other than geopolitical issues, main problem is that any mass production would eat considerable percentage of world's bismuth production. However the design is safe and based on battle-tested submarine reactors from Alfa class attack subs.
tcmart14 5y ago
I love the aspect of rolling out more nuclear as a solution, but the centralization issue is a good point. While I love the idea of rolling out more Nuclear, I still don't see it as a forever and always solution. Nuclear at the very least, should be a viable option until other green energy sources get further along in their development where needed. I would love to see a day when people could generate most of all their energy needs themselves.
- Galaxeblaffer 5y ago
  And why couldn't that be with a small nuclear battery ? Can you point to anything that could make remotely sense everywhere on the planet and in space?
gefhfff 5y ago
> Unfortunately the sun doesn't shine everywhere all the time (especially in higher latitudes during their winter), and wind power is not perfect everywhere either, so nuclear will be a necessary evil as part of the mix alongside other low carbon options. No, it wont be necessary, because there are solutions to storage as well.
- agent327 5y ago
  Oh pray tell. What solutions will fix the following two problems: 1. What type of storage is able to provide for, say, Northern Europe, where there may be weeks without wind and months without any significant sunlight? Keep in mind that the answer must be realistic, and not, for example, require that we suddenly increase global battery production by several orders of magnitude. 2. Renewable energy is already vastly insufficient to meet demand, even at moments when it is producing at full capacity. When will you actually fill those batteries? Oh, and while we are at it, which part of the already densely populated landscape of Northern Europe should be sacrificed to put all this equipment?
  - gefhfff 5y ago
    Storage: gas, batteries of EVs Energy: put solar on every roof, and some land, use 2% land for wind, use wasted energy better, reduce power consumption, ... There are multiple studies that show a path to renewables for Germany using just renewables. And it can happen before any nuclear reactor can be used...
  - ZeroGravitas 5y ago
    In reverse order: 2. We need to build lots more renewables. 1. a) You build more than you need on any particular day so even when the wind is low you get something. b) when you have more than you need as electricity, which is basically all the time, you make hydrogen to decarbonize the production of steel, fertilizer, avgas etc. (This is something we need to do even if we had lots of cheap nuclear plants) c) If you are hit by some freak event you didnt plan for, and you can't just import via wires, you burn the hydrogen in fairly standard cheap turbines to provide more power. You have a lot stored as hydrogen anyway that you were going to make stuff with, so just delay that a little. (In the short term, while every bit of electricity is needed to clean the grid, stored natural gas can take this role) d) do this all over the world, and when convenient, trade hydrogen or things made from it as a way of exporting/importing renewable energy from wherever it's cheapest. e) lithium batteries for grid use would only be economic for shifting a small amount of power on a daily schedule (e.g. solar peaks to evenings or night wind to mornings) but.. f) the entire vehicle fleet shifting to battery means theres a giant demand response fleet that can absorb energy when its available at no (extra) loss since they were going to charge anyway. extra: there's no reason to not include nuclear in the above, except for the fact that it's more expensive than the other options for producing electricity and we already need a method to flex demand to meet needs. So new nuclear is mostly useless, unless you need some excuse to talk about how crap renewables are.

by natch 5y ago

00deadbeef 5y ago

Rolls-Royce are developing small modular reactors which will help decentralise nuclear power as you’d have fewer small reactors spread over a larger area.

00deadbeef 5y ago
many small reactors*
p_l 5y ago
SVBR design has been around since 1995 or so. Other than geopolitical issues, main problem is that any mass production would eat considerable percentage of world's bismuth production. However the design is safe and based on battle-tested submarine reactors from Alfa class attack subs.

tcmart14 5y ago

I love the aspect of rolling out more nuclear as a solution, but the centralization issue is a good point. While I love the idea of rolling out more Nuclear, I still don't see it as a forever and always solution. Nuclear at the very least, should be a viable option until other green energy sources get further along in their development where needed. I would love to see a day when people could generate most of all their energy needs themselves.

Galaxeblaffer 5y ago
And why couldn't that be with a small nuclear battery ? Can you point to anything that could make remotely sense everywhere on the planet and in space?

gefhfff 5y ago

> Unfortunately the sun doesn't shine everywhere all the time (especially in higher latitudes during their winter), and wind power is not perfect everywhere either, so nuclear will be a necessary evil as part of the mix alongside other low carbon options. No, it wont be necessary, because there are solutions to storage as well.

agent327 5y ago
Oh pray tell. What solutions will fix the following two problems: 1. What type of storage is able to provide for, say, Northern Europe, where there may be weeks without wind and months without any significant sunlight? Keep in mind that the answer must be realistic, and not, for example, require that we suddenly increase global battery production by several orders of magnitude. 2. Renewable energy is already vastly insufficient to meet demand, even at moments when it is producing at full capacity. When will you actually fill those batteries? Oh, and while we are at it, which part of the already densely populated landscape of Northern Europe should be sacrificed to put all this equipment?
- gefhfff 5y ago
  Storage: gas, batteries of EVs Energy: put solar on every roof, and some land, use 2% land for wind, use wasted energy better, reduce power consumption, ... There are multiple studies that show a path to renewables for Germany using just renewables. And it can happen before any nuclear reactor can be used...
- ZeroGravitas 5y ago
  In reverse order: 2. We need to build lots more renewables. 1. a) You build more than you need on any particular day so even when the wind is low you get something. b) when you have more than you need as electricity, which is basically all the time, you make hydrogen to decarbonize the production of steel, fertilizer, avgas etc. (This is something we need to do even if we had lots of cheap nuclear plants) c) If you are hit by some freak event you didnt plan for, and you can't just import via wires, you burn the hydrogen in fairly standard cheap turbines to provide more power. You have a lot stored as hydrogen anyway that you were going to make stuff with, so just delay that a little. (In the short term, while every bit of electricity is needed to clean the grid, stored natural gas can take this role) d) do this all over the world, and when convenient, trade hydrogen or things made from it as a way of exporting/importing renewable energy from wherever it's cheapest. e) lithium batteries for grid use would only be economic for shifting a small amount of power on a daily schedule (e.g. solar peaks to evenings or night wind to mornings) but.. f) the entire vehicle fleet shifting to battery means theres a giant demand response fleet that can absorb energy when its available at no (extra) loss since they were going to charge anyway. extra: there's no reason to not include nuclear in the above, except for the fact that it's more expensive than the other options for producing electricity and we already need a method to flex demand to meet needs. So new nuclear is mostly useless, unless you need some excuse to talk about how crap renewables are.