4 ms·

Not sure which world you've been living in, but nuclear has been proven to work at scale, while requiring significantly less area than solar or wind, and being

Not sure which world you've been living in, but nuclear has been proven to work at scale, while requiring significantly less area than solar or wind, and being able to be load bearing and load following.

pfdietz 4y ago
If the world's entire current primary energy demand were supplied with burner reactors -- about 6000 3MW(th) reactors -- the world's estimated uranium resource would last about five years. Your "at scale" is a tiny fraction of the scale that would be needed, and at that larger, true scale, current commercially demonstrated nuclear technology would quickly fail. Breeders would be needed to enable use of much more expensive uranium ores (or thorium), and those are not demonstrated at even your smaller scale.
- pfdietz 4y ago
  Er, 6000 3GW(th) reactors.
- dmitriid 4y ago
  It's funny how you pulled the conversation entirely away from discussing tech that often is strictly theoretical, and most of which hasn't been proven to work at scale on the level of even one nuclear plant to... «but what about nuclear». > Your "at scale" is a tiny fraction of the scale that would be needed, and at that larger, true scale, Which of the tech listed here has this "true scale": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33387011 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33387011 ?
  - pfdietz 4y ago
    I'm simply pointing out that if one objects to renewables because scaling has not been demonstrated, and also advocates nuclear, then one is being a hypocrite -- because nuclear also lacks demonstration of the necessary scaling. I don't think the argument that scaling has not been demonstrated is a strong argument, unless there is a good reason to think the scaling won't work. There isn't a good reason to think that for renewables overall. In particular: limits on area are not sufficient, and limitations on particular storage technologies (say, from materials requirements) also fail, since there are many different storage technologies, some of which require no rare materials at all.
    - dmitriid 4y ago
      > I'm simply pointing out that if one objects to renewables because scaling has not been demonstrated, and also advocates nuclear, then one is being a hypocrite -- because nuclear also lacks demonstration of the necessary scaling. See, there's a difference between scaling and scaling. It is a well-established fact that to provide the same stable production on the same scale as existing nuclear reneables need to be either vastly overprovisioned or have extremely high-capacity storage available. Possibly, the combination of both. And yet, somehow, when we talk about scaling, it's suddenly "oh no, nuclear cannot scale to support the entire world, it's proof it cannot scale" when renewables can barely sustainably reach the existing scales. > I don't think the argument that scaling has not been demonstrated is a strong argument, unless there is a good reason to think the scaling won't work. I will remind you that the original comment I was replying to was this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33386636 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33386636 It was talking about storage solutions which are all but required for renewables. And literally none of those solutions have been proven to work at scale. Moreover, some of those solutions are at best theoretical. But sure, do tell me how it's not a strong argument? > limitations on particular storage technologies (say, from materials requirements) also fail, since there are many different storage technologies, some of which require no rare materials at all. Yes. There are "many storage solutions". Go ahead and show me those that work at scale. And literally no one was talking about the need or lack thereof of rare materials for that storage. We'll cross that bridge when we come to it.
      - Schroedingersat 4y ago
        There were roughly 30GW of net capacity in nuclear added in 1985. Compare to around 500GWh/yr of already existing battery production and around 50GW net of new renewable production each year. The nuclear industry was briefly almost at the current a scale of renewable + storage production. It is now limited by availabity of fuel and cannot grow without new technologies.
        dmitriid 4y ago
        > There were roughly 30GW of net capacity in nuclear added in 1985. Didn't know we are living in 1985. > Compare to around 500GWh/yr of already existing battery production 1. Are these batteries all used in grid energy storage, or are you taking the full output including things like batteries for remotes? 2. How many of those batteries are actually scalable solutions, deployed, and working. It's kinda funny how my opponents continuously try to steer away the conversation away from this. 3. Compare that to "nuclear power plants generate about a tenth of the world's electricity" which amounts to about 2 653 344 GWh [1] > The nuclear industry was briefly almost at the current a scale of renewable + storage production. Storage solutions are not even remotely near nuclear. Without storage renewables have to be significantly overprovisioned to be used reliably. To repeat again. It's funny how you pulled the conversation entirely away from discussing tech that often is strictly theoretical, and most of which hasn't been proven to work at scale on the level of even one nuclear plant to... «but what about nuclear». > Your "at scale" is a tiny fraction of the scale that would be needed, and at that larger, true scale, Which of the tech listed here has this "true scale": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33387011 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33387011 ? ---- Edit: don't bother. This discussion isn't in good faith, and being willingly derailed into discussing everything and anything other then the original statements I replied to. I'm not going to engage in this conversation further. ---- [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country

pfdietz 4y ago

If the world's entire current primary energy demand were supplied with burner reactors -- about 6000 3MW(th) reactors -- the world's estimated uranium resource would last about five years. Your "at scale" is a tiny fraction of the scale that would be needed, and at that larger, true scale, current commercially demonstrated nuclear technology would quickly fail. Breeders would be needed to enable use of much more expensive uranium ores (or thorium), and those are not demonstrated at even your smaller scale.

pfdietz 4y ago
Er, 6000 3GW(th) reactors.
dmitriid 4y ago
It's funny how you pulled the conversation entirely away from discussing tech that often is strictly theoretical, and most of which hasn't been proven to work at scale on the level of even one nuclear plant to... «but what about nuclear». > Your "at scale" is a tiny fraction of the scale that would be needed, and at that larger, true scale, Which of the tech listed here has this "true scale": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33387011 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33387011 ?
- pfdietz 4y ago
  I'm simply pointing out that if one objects to renewables because scaling has not been demonstrated, and also advocates nuclear, then one is being a hypocrite -- because nuclear also lacks demonstration of the necessary scaling. I don't think the argument that scaling has not been demonstrated is a strong argument, unless there is a good reason to think the scaling won't work. There isn't a good reason to think that for renewables overall. In particular: limits on area are not sufficient, and limitations on particular storage technologies (say, from materials requirements) also fail, since there are many different storage technologies, some of which require no rare materials at all.
  - dmitriid 4y ago
    > I'm simply pointing out that if one objects to renewables because scaling has not been demonstrated, and also advocates nuclear, then one is being a hypocrite -- because nuclear also lacks demonstration of the necessary scaling. See, there's a difference between scaling and scaling. It is a well-established fact that to provide the same stable production on the same scale as existing nuclear reneables need to be either vastly overprovisioned or have extremely high-capacity storage available. Possibly, the combination of both. And yet, somehow, when we talk about scaling, it's suddenly "oh no, nuclear cannot scale to support the entire world, it's proof it cannot scale" when renewables can barely sustainably reach the existing scales. > I don't think the argument that scaling has not been demonstrated is a strong argument, unless there is a good reason to think the scaling won't work. I will remind you that the original comment I was replying to was this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33386636 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33386636 It was talking about storage solutions which are all but required for renewables. And literally none of those solutions have been proven to work at scale. Moreover, some of those solutions are at best theoretical. But sure, do tell me how it's not a strong argument? > limitations on particular storage technologies (say, from materials requirements) also fail, since there are many different storage technologies, some of which require no rare materials at all. Yes. There are "many storage solutions". Go ahead and show me those that work at scale. And literally no one was talking about the need or lack thereof of rare materials for that storage. We'll cross that bridge when we come to it.
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      There were roughly 30GW of net capacity in nuclear added in 1985. Compare to around 500GWh/yr of already existing battery production and around 50GW net of new renewable production each year. The nuclear industry was briefly almost at the current a scale of renewable + storage production. It is now limited by availabity of fuel and cannot grow without new technologies.
      - dmitriid 4y ago
        > There were roughly 30GW of net capacity in nuclear added in 1985. Didn't know we are living in 1985. > Compare to around 500GWh/yr of already existing battery production 1. Are these batteries all used in grid energy storage, or are you taking the full output including things like batteries for remotes? 2. How many of those batteries are actually scalable solutions, deployed, and working. It's kinda funny how my opponents continuously try to steer away the conversation away from this. 3. Compare that to "nuclear power plants generate about a tenth of the world's electricity" which amounts to about 2 653 344 GWh [1] > The nuclear industry was briefly almost at the current a scale of renewable + storage production. Storage solutions are not even remotely near nuclear. Without storage renewables have to be significantly overprovisioned to be used reliably. To repeat again. It's funny how you pulled the conversation entirely away from discussing tech that often is strictly theoretical, and most of which hasn't been proven to work at scale on the level of even one nuclear plant to... «but what about nuclear». > Your "at scale" is a tiny fraction of the scale that would be needed, and at that larger, true scale, Which of the tech listed here has this "true scale": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33387011 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33387011 ? ---- Edit: don't bother. This discussion isn't in good faith, and being willingly derailed into discussing everything and anything other then the original statements I replied to. I'm not going to engage in this conversation further. ---- [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country