3 ms·

"I think that future will be nuclear fission powered, and not sun and solar powered. " Every life on earth, was always sun powered. I doubt that fundamentally

"I think that future will be nuclear fission powered, and not sun and solar powered. " Every life on earth, was always sun powered. I doubt that fundamentally changes. "They had all the technology needed back then, why did they use it so badly'?" But I agree to that. The technology is there. Did you know, that you can make batteries in bulk with no rare elements, with just iron, copper and saltwater? And also, that you can transport electricity over long distances and that we have abundance of sunny desserts? (and many more concepts of solar power generating, than just solar panels) But sure, alternativly we can also build thousands of nuclear reactors, that contaminate their environment for a long time if they fail badly. I mean, fission is an quite awesome technology, which at some point of progress probably can handled safely under normal circumstances. But just because of unsolved human social dynamics alone (aka terrorism), it is maybe not very wise to scale them up and spread them everywhere. But whether solar or nuclear - the main problems that remain, are that in most parts of the world, it is still way cheaper to just burn coal and oil.

ncmncm 5y ago
It is not. But the furnaces and turbines are already built out. So, everybody continues spending a lot more on power than they should. We would not have this problem today if Ronald Reagan and his political heirs had not killed alternative power investment decades back.
- panick21_ 5y ago
  What would have actually helped if Nixon and Jimmy Carter would not have killed and reduced nuclear power research. And solar and win power were simpy not ready, no matter what Reagan did. The simple fact is, green CO-2 free power grids were possible, and they were done in the 80s by France. The reality is both parties turned essentially anti-nuclear because of the backlash in the 70s.
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    Clearly you would like for that to be true. But Jimmy Carter was a trained nuclear engineer. He was well qualified to understand their true value. Or lack of it. He put solar panels up on the White House roof. Reagan scrapped them. Reagan, of course, was not qualified to understand much of anything besides PR. But did, that.
    - panick21_ 5y ago
      What matters is not what the president believes but what the people he represents believes and gives him votes. Are we seriously gone pretend things like putting solar panel on the white house and putting so much emphasis on that was more likely to save CO2 anytime soon? And it was in fact under Nixon and more under Carter that a number of nuclear efforts were stopped and replaced with things that had absolutely no chance of having great returns anytime soon. I'm not saying Reagan was better, he clearly didn't turn that ship around. But the assertion that if it wasn't for him we would live in a CO2 free paradise because of carters investment in solar is totally delusional.
panick21_ 5y ago
> Every life on earth, was always sun powered. I doubt that fundamentally changes. I am clearly talking about electricity generation on earth. Seem like a totally unnecessary thing to say as you knew very well in what context I said it. > But I agree to that. The technology is there. There is a very large gap been established principles science and commercial license. > Did you know, that you can make batteries in bulk with no rare elements, with just iron, copper and saltwater? Yes I know all about companies like Form Energy and many other battery startups. But if we are actually honest, most of those are not deployed. Most grid batteries deployed today are still Li-Ion. > And also, that you can transport electricity over long distances and that we have abundance of sunny desserts? Yes, but all those things come at a cost. Localized energy presentation has been the principle and it made a lots of sense. Starting to in far more long distance energy line and local distribution of that energy had a number of disadvantages. > But whether solar or nuclear - the main problems that remain, are that in most parts of the world, it is still way cheaper to just burn coal and oil. That is why I fundamentally believe in nuclear, based on first principles it has the potential to be cheaper. There is no inherent reason a nuclear plant need to be more expensive then coal plant. And nuclear fuel should be cheaper then coal in the long term. Nuclear plants can be put on a ship or floating platform and put right next to most of the large coast bound cities in Asia. Alternatively you can just go to a place with a coal plant put a nuclear plant there instead. I just don't see those nations build a distributed networks of solar and wind and battery connected across long distances. Places like Indonesia are massively expanding with coal, their population lives on the coast.
- hutzlibu 5y ago
  "But if we are actually honest, most of those are not deployed. Most grid batteries deployed today are still Li-Ion" Because the price of lithium was low enough, to not bother. Now that has changed, so they will become broadly avaiable very soon. And it is not like there is any technological brakethrough required. You can build and order them today. It is more about adopting production processes to it, to make them cheaper than lithium based batteries. But I heard the argument too often, that batteries are not a solution, because of rare earth elements, which is why I brought it up. "Yes, but all those things come at a cost. " And yes, they do. The price for renewables is a massive investment in the grid. And the price for nuclear is safety. As far as I know, no private insurance company is willing to take that risk, which is why the states have to step in. The worst thing that can happen with batteries is a fire (and most saltwater based batteries are actually quite fire proof) The worst thing that can happen with a swimming nuclear plant is widespread contamination for decades. It is still advised against eating too many mushrooms or boar meat in my area (central europe), because of one incident 35 years ago, happening 1000 km away.

ncmncm 5y ago

It is not. But the furnaces and turbines are already built out. So, everybody continues spending a lot more on power than they should. We would not have this problem today if Ronald Reagan and his political heirs had not killed alternative power investment decades back.

panick21_ 5y ago
What would have actually helped if Nixon and Jimmy Carter would not have killed and reduced nuclear power research. And solar and win power were simpy not ready, no matter what Reagan did. The simple fact is, green CO-2 free power grids were possible, and they were done in the 80s by France. The reality is both parties turned essentially anti-nuclear because of the backlash in the 70s.
- ncmncm 5y ago
  Clearly you would like for that to be true. But Jimmy Carter was a trained nuclear engineer. He was well qualified to understand their true value. Or lack of it. He put solar panels up on the White House roof. Reagan scrapped them. Reagan, of course, was not qualified to understand much of anything besides PR. But did, that.
  - panick21_ 5y ago
    What matters is not what the president believes but what the people he represents believes and gives him votes. Are we seriously gone pretend things like putting solar panel on the white house and putting so much emphasis on that was more likely to save CO2 anytime soon? And it was in fact under Nixon and more under Carter that a number of nuclear efforts were stopped and replaced with things that had absolutely no chance of having great returns anytime soon. I'm not saying Reagan was better, he clearly didn't turn that ship around. But the assertion that if it wasn't for him we would live in a CO2 free paradise because of carters investment in solar is totally delusional.

panick21_ 5y ago

> Every life on earth, was always sun powered. I doubt that fundamentally changes. I am clearly talking about electricity generation on earth. Seem like a totally unnecessary thing to say as you knew very well in what context I said it. > But I agree to that. The technology is there. There is a very large gap been established principles science and commercial license. > Did you know, that you can make batteries in bulk with no rare elements, with just iron, copper and saltwater? Yes I know all about companies like Form Energy and many other battery startups. But if we are actually honest, most of those are not deployed. Most grid batteries deployed today are still Li-Ion. > And also, that you can transport electricity over long distances and that we have abundance of sunny desserts? Yes, but all those things come at a cost. Localized energy presentation has been the principle and it made a lots of sense. Starting to in far more long distance energy line and local distribution of that energy had a number of disadvantages. > But whether solar or nuclear - the main problems that remain, are that in most parts of the world, it is still way cheaper to just burn coal and oil. That is why I fundamentally believe in nuclear, based on first principles it has the potential to be cheaper. There is no inherent reason a nuclear plant need to be more expensive then coal plant. And nuclear fuel should be cheaper then coal in the long term. Nuclear plants can be put on a ship or floating platform and put right next to most of the large coast bound cities in Asia. Alternatively you can just go to a place with a coal plant put a nuclear plant there instead. I just don't see those nations build a distributed networks of solar and wind and battery connected across long distances. Places like Indonesia are massively expanding with coal, their population lives on the coast.

hutzlibu 5y ago
"But if we are actually honest, most of those are not deployed. Most grid batteries deployed today are still Li-Ion" Because the price of lithium was low enough, to not bother. Now that has changed, so they will become broadly avaiable very soon. And it is not like there is any technological brakethrough required. You can build and order them today. It is more about adopting production processes to it, to make them cheaper than lithium based batteries. But I heard the argument too often, that batteries are not a solution, because of rare earth elements, which is why I brought it up. "Yes, but all those things come at a cost. " And yes, they do. The price for renewables is a massive investment in the grid. And the price for nuclear is safety. As far as I know, no private insurance company is willing to take that risk, which is why the states have to step in. The worst thing that can happen with batteries is a fire (and most saltwater based batteries are actually quite fire proof) The worst thing that can happen with a swimming nuclear plant is widespread contamination for decades. It is still advised against eating too many mushrooms or boar meat in my area (central europe), because of one incident 35 years ago, happening 1000 km away.