5 ms·

The distinction is that wind/solar arrive for free without any effort. That just isn't true of nuclear fuel. I don't think that is a problem particularly. Mor

by 7952 5y ago

The distinction is that wind/solar arrive for free without any effort. That just isn't true of nuclear fuel. I don't think that is a problem particularly. More that "renewable" is the wrong word.

systemvoltage 5y ago
I don’t understand what you mean by “arrive for free”. We have to capture it. It is not free of any externalities.
- Forgeties79 5y ago
  You don’t have to produce/extract/manufacture anything to make the wind blow or the sun shine. We capture them as they are. Edit: let’s see how many people will continue to ignore other comments to get the same point in I guess.
  - appletrotter 5y ago
    You don't have to produce/extract/manufacture anything to make the ocean hold uranium for us.
  - akvadrako 5y ago
    You don't have to build anything to make uranium radiate. That's a pointless argument and unrelated to "renewable", which means it won't get used up.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - redweer 5y ago
    the solar panels and wires and plastic that hook these systems up to the grid/end-user require a lot of producing/extracting/manufacturing
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - codelord 5y ago
    Why is that an important difference? To capture wind and solar you have to build turbines and solar panels which aren't free. You also have to have batteries to store them because of seasonal nature of these sources. You also need to transmit the energy thousands of miles through electrical grid because these sources of energy are limited to certain areas. Building the electrical grid itself just needs cutting out millions of more trees. So overall, the environmental impact of going full solar/wind would be worse than a combination of solar, wind, nuclear, and even maybe natural gas.
    - Forgeties79 5y ago
      No one is denying you need those things. We’re talking about a specific step that doesn’t exist for solar/wind akin to being able to drink water you find vs. having to make it clean.
      - codelord 5y ago
        I understand what you are saying, and I'm saying it's a pointless argument which doesn't add any value to the discussion.
        Forgeties79 5y ago
        Duly noted.
  - boredumb 5y ago
    We need tons of coal and plastics to capture the sun shine.
SllX 5y ago
If we ran the entire world off of nuclear reactors, we could increase the energy we used and still not worry about exhausting the amount of uranium available to us. Proliferation would be a concern though. That said, why would we run the entire world on nuclear, or go for a nuclear-only strategy when we also have solar and wind and geothermal and hydroelectric? For that matter, why should we exclude nuclear from the energy mix available to us? Different sources of power have different properties with different tradeoffs, but if you can cover your bases with multiple types, why wouldn’t you?
- arcticbull 5y ago
  Hydro is actually not a particularly good choice in most cases. Some hydro installations can actually produce just as much global warming impact as a fossil fuel plant (largely methane produced in the flooded area - which has a far greater impact than CO2; about 80X greater). They also have significant ecological impact that isn't usually accounted for in folks mental models. [1, 2] Hydro isn't really green energy. Geothermal I think only works in some places without causing earthquakes. [3] Wind and solar are good, though. [1] https://www.science.org/content/article/hundreds-new-dams-could-mean-trouble-our-climate https://www.science.org/content/article/hundreds-new-dams-co... [2] https://www.utilitydive.com/news/hydropower-emissions-fossil-fuels/567572 https://www.utilitydive.com/news/hydropower-emissions-fossil... [3] https://news.stanford.edu/2019/05/23/lessons-south-korea-solving-geothermals-earthquake-problem/ https://news.stanford.edu/2019/05/23/lessons-south-korea-sol...
  - SllX 5y ago
    From a Californian perspective, hydro and geothermal are basically tapped as far as I know, in-State anyway. The plants that are operational already is about the extent of what we can probably build. Actually something of a dream of mine is to see nuclear reactors eventually replace some of our dams, maybe restore some of the lakes and tributaries that have been lost, but presently new reactor construction is prohibited here per a ballot initiative from before I was born. My larger point is that society is going to continue to demand increased electricity generation, which means new plants and installations. It’s one thing to want to replace existing installations but if you’re going to service future demand, then new sources of multiple types have to remain on the table. I would take nuclear over gas-fired plants, but I would take gas-fired plants over coal-fired plants.
appletrotter 5y ago
I don't think the word "renewable" implies anything about effort involved?
zsombor 5y ago
You have to build solar panels and wind turbines. Then have connecting service roads able to carry heavy equipment. Wash the panels frequently or watch their performance plummet. Grease moving parts to avoid friction losses. Maintain the rotor blades at the cost of significant downtimes. Replace everything after 20 years as that is their average lifespan. Deal with all poorly recyclable waste you have created. Overbuild all transmission lines by a wide margin, to compensate for the low density and intermittent nature of wind and solar. Accept that what could have been truly space reserved for wild nature is now used for low density energy farming. I really don't see how wind and solar are renewable in the true sense of the word. From an ecological perspective the point should be to use our resources efficiently so as to return large swaths of land to pristine nature. Currently you can do this two ways: one use high density technologies like nuclear, the other is to go extinct voluntarily. My choice was made after becoming a parent.
Turing_Machine 5y ago
Wind generators aren't free. Solar cells aren't free. And (even more importantly) backing storage for when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing is most definitely not free.

by 7952 5y ago

The distinction is that wind/solar arrive for free without any effort. That just isn't true of nuclear fuel. I don't think that is a problem particularly. More that "renewable" is the wrong word.

systemvoltage 5y ago

I don’t understand what you mean by “arrive for free”. We have to capture it. It is not free of any externalities.

Forgeties79 5y ago
You don’t have to produce/extract/manufacture anything to make the wind blow or the sun shine. We capture them as they are. Edit: let’s see how many people will continue to ignore other comments to get the same point in I guess.
- appletrotter 5y ago
  You don't have to produce/extract/manufacture anything to make the ocean hold uranium for us.
- akvadrako 5y ago
  You don't have to build anything to make uranium radiate. That's a pointless argument and unrelated to "renewable", which means it won't get used up.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- redweer 5y ago
  the solar panels and wires and plastic that hook these systems up to the grid/end-user require a lot of producing/extracting/manufacturing
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- codelord 5y ago
  Why is that an important difference? To capture wind and solar you have to build turbines and solar panels which aren't free. You also have to have batteries to store them because of seasonal nature of these sources. You also need to transmit the energy thousands of miles through electrical grid because these sources of energy are limited to certain areas. Building the electrical grid itself just needs cutting out millions of more trees. So overall, the environmental impact of going full solar/wind would be worse than a combination of solar, wind, nuclear, and even maybe natural gas.
  - Forgeties79 5y ago
    No one is denying you need those things. We’re talking about a specific step that doesn’t exist for solar/wind akin to being able to drink water you find vs. having to make it clean.
    - codelord 5y ago
      I understand what you are saying, and I'm saying it's a pointless argument which doesn't add any value to the discussion.
      - Forgeties79 5y ago
        Duly noted.
- boredumb 5y ago
  We need tons of coal and plastics to capture the sun shine.

SllX 5y ago

If we ran the entire world off of nuclear reactors, we could increase the energy we used and still not worry about exhausting the amount of uranium available to us. Proliferation would be a concern though. That said, why would we run the entire world on nuclear, or go for a nuclear-only strategy when we also have solar and wind and geothermal and hydroelectric? For that matter, why should we exclude nuclear from the energy mix available to us? Different sources of power have different properties with different tradeoffs, but if you can cover your bases with multiple types, why wouldn’t you?

arcticbull 5y ago
Hydro is actually not a particularly good choice in most cases. Some hydro installations can actually produce just as much global warming impact as a fossil fuel plant (largely methane produced in the flooded area - which has a far greater impact than CO2; about 80X greater). They also have significant ecological impact that isn't usually accounted for in folks mental models. [1, 2] Hydro isn't really green energy. Geothermal I think only works in some places without causing earthquakes. [3] Wind and solar are good, though. [1] https://www.science.org/content/article/hundreds-new-dams-could-mean-trouble-our-climate https://www.science.org/content/article/hundreds-new-dams-co... [2] https://www.utilitydive.com/news/hydropower-emissions-fossil-fuels/567572 https://www.utilitydive.com/news/hydropower-emissions-fossil... [3] https://news.stanford.edu/2019/05/23/lessons-south-korea-solving-geothermals-earthquake-problem/ https://news.stanford.edu/2019/05/23/lessons-south-korea-sol...
- SllX 5y ago
  From a Californian perspective, hydro and geothermal are basically tapped as far as I know, in-State anyway. The plants that are operational already is about the extent of what we can probably build. Actually something of a dream of mine is to see nuclear reactors eventually replace some of our dams, maybe restore some of the lakes and tributaries that have been lost, but presently new reactor construction is prohibited here per a ballot initiative from before I was born. My larger point is that society is going to continue to demand increased electricity generation, which means new plants and installations. It’s one thing to want to replace existing installations but if you’re going to service future demand, then new sources of multiple types have to remain on the table. I would take nuclear over gas-fired plants, but I would take gas-fired plants over coal-fired plants.

appletrotter 5y ago

I don't think the word "renewable" implies anything about effort involved?

zsombor 5y ago

You have to build solar panels and wind turbines. Then have connecting service roads able to carry heavy equipment. Wash the panels frequently or watch their performance plummet. Grease moving parts to avoid friction losses. Maintain the rotor blades at the cost of significant downtimes. Replace everything after 20 years as that is their average lifespan. Deal with all poorly recyclable waste you have created. Overbuild all transmission lines by a wide margin, to compensate for the low density and intermittent nature of wind and solar. Accept that what could have been truly space reserved for wild nature is now used for low density energy farming. I really don't see how wind and solar are renewable in the true sense of the word. From an ecological perspective the point should be to use our resources efficiently so as to return large swaths of land to pristine nature. Currently you can do this two ways: one use high density technologies like nuclear, the other is to go extinct voluntarily. My choice was made after becoming a parent.

Turing_Machine 5y ago

Wind generators aren't free. Solar cells aren't free. And (even more importantly) backing storage for when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing is most definitely not free.