5 ms·

> Cheaper is a non-goal for me. Better is the goal. And nuclear delivers consistent stable baseload that supplements renewables while having a lower carbon foot

> Cheaper is a non-goal for me. Better is the goal. And nuclear delivers consistent stable baseload that supplements renewables while having a lower carbon footprint than both wind and solar. Prove it. Show me an LCA for mass expansion of nuclear, including the new mines in lower concentration deposits that comes out at lower carbon than new renewables with hydrogen (or even gas) backup for the 5% needed to cover the gaps using current technology. Then after you exhaust known reserves in 10 years include whatever scifi scheme you have for getting more. Here's a mix for somewhere in the arctic to get you started before you start concern trolling about winter: https://model.energy/?results=822cd1d042dfd31d9faf011150ee2d01#solve https://model.energy/?results=822cd1d042dfd31d9faf011150ee2d... > Nuclear is not polluting. Serpent river, Rossing, Kakadu, Kadapa, Church Hill, La Hague Every other stage of the supply chain spews heavy metals and radiation into the environment. Then there's the fact that there simply isn't enough uranium.

arcticbull 4y ago
> Serpent river, Rossing, Kakadu, Kadapa, Church Hill, La Hague Nuclear accidents are polluting, but steady state certainly is not. But what makes you think that this will be an issue elsewhere going forward? There's no evidence to think so. On the other hand, wind power requires rare earth metals that are mined in open pit hellscapes in Mongolia. [1] That doesn't look very environmentally friendly. And of course solar panels are for now just acres and acres of e-waste that gets buried in poor countries. Battery storage requires huge quantities of lithium. A single Tesla battery pack generates as much CO2 in production as an entire ICE car does in manufacture. There is of course more than enough uranium. There's billions of tons dissolved in seawater, enough for 100,000 years of current electric capacity. In fact a new gel was just discovered to make extraction much more efficient. [2] That 4 billion tons is actually replenished as it's extracted from geological processes. There is plenty of Uranium for conventional fission reactors. By most measures, existing nuclear power schemes are renewable. Then, breeder reactors require some 100x less uranium, and CANDU reactors can already operate on thorium cycle. There is no perfect solution, and meeting our energy needs at minimum CO2 requires a variety of energy sources. I'm not opposed to renewables at all. By all means, build away. [1] https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20150402-the-worst-place-on-earth https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20150402-the-worst-place-... [2] https://bigthink.com/hard-science/extract-uranium-seawater/ https://bigthink.com/hard-science/extract-uranium-seawater/
- moloch-hai 4y ago
  Wind power does not, in fact, require rare-earth metals. Rare-earth metals are now being mined (mainly for fractional-horsepower motors) in other places.
  - arcticbull 4y ago
    There have always been rare earth metals outside of China, but the reason they're mined in China is only China has been willing to pay the environmental cost associated with their extraction, processing and refinement. As the peer comment pointed out you can have copper-only turbines but copper mining is an equally brutal process. [1, 2] Fun fact: copper is frequently co-located with uranium, radium and thorium. In-situ leaching can transport uranium and thorium into groundwater or surface water at the processing site. [2] [1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/09/copper-mining-reveals-clean-energy-dark-side https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/09/copper-minin... [2] https://www.epa.gov/radiation/tenorm-copper-mining-and-production-wastes https://www.epa.gov/radiation/tenorm-copper-mining-and-produ...
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      I did not, in fact, just point out you could have copper only turbines. I pointed out that there were also purely aluminum wound ones. Additionally trying to scare about the effects of copper ISL when nuclear needs the copper and then also leaching (in situ or above) vastly higher quantities of ore which transports far more of those doesn't really help your point.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  > Ok, but what makes you think that this will be an issue elsewhere going forward? The fact that it's an issue right now? The fact that it's not an accident but standard operating procedure? > On the other hand, wind power requires rare earth metals that are mined in open pit hellscapes in Mongolia. [1] That doesn't look very environmentally friendly. More lies. https://www.vestas.com/content/dam/vestas-com/global/en/sustainability/reports-and-ratings/lcas/LCA%20of%20Electricity%20Production%20from%20an%20onshore%20V150-4.2,%204.5MW%20Wind%20Plant_Final.Web.pdf.coredownload.inline.pdf https://www.vestas.com/content/dam/vestas-com/global/en/sust... Where are the rare earths? Enercon even got rid of the copper. > And of course solar panels are for now just acres and acres of e-waste that gets buried in poor countries. It's made of sand with traces of silver and lead all encased in glass. It has mandatory recycling laws in civilised countries, you're welcome to implement them (or just wait until the recycling supply chains make used panels valuable enough that it happens anyway). And there and an order of magnitude less of it than the uranium leaching fluid that gets left in unsealed dams in kadapa, or dams with no flood mitigation in Husab, or pumped directly into the ground water in Inkai or Kakadu. With your sea mining scifi you know you need to make 1-2kg of polymer and put it in the ocean for 6 months per MWh all to get around the same amount of energy per unit of water as lifting it 70 metres, right?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Kuinox 4y ago
> The propensity to consider that the technologies under development – hydrogen as an energy vector, smart-grids – can be, in a climate emergency, technologies to be deployed massively, in the moment, testifies to a profound ignorance of development deadlines. Quote from someone you probably don't like: a previous french High Commissioner for Atomic Energy.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  You're right. Instead of using things which exist and are currently scaling up we should instead go all in on technologies with insurmountable resource limits and technologies that are much less developed like breeders and sea mining.
  - Kuinox 4y ago
    Renewables energy sources as called were still pushed by the same arguments back then, we can see the results today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0qg9PT-HqM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0qg9PT-HqM I'm not saying this won't work this time, but again, I ask you how sanely can you propose a fully renewable model when countries with a lot more sun struggle to do the same ? I wonder how can you be so sure of the solution you are "selling". Ironically, on my own bus line, hydrogen bus doesn't have the best carbon footprint: https://www.airliquide.com/group/press-releases-news/2018-03-28/air-liquide-opens-new-hydrogen-station-ile-de-france-fuel-frances-first-hydrogen-powered-bus-line https://www.airliquide.com/group/press-releases-news/2018-03... No, the battery powered bus, charged with low carbon, nuclear energy has the lowest carbon footprint: https://imgur.com/a/fx5MiMp https://imgur.com/a/fx5MiMp , because here, next to the Air Liquide Innovation pole, hydrogen is still made from hydrocarbons. Also these one were not paid with europe money, but the region. Disclaimer: I own 14 shares of Air Liquide SA.
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      So germany massively scaled back their renewable rollout and this is bad because they built renewables? Then an unrelated rant about hydrogen. That definitely convinced me. Good job, champ.

arcticbull 4y ago

> Serpent river, Rossing, Kakadu, Kadapa, Church Hill, La Hague Nuclear accidents are polluting, but steady state certainly is not. But what makes you think that this will be an issue elsewhere going forward? There's no evidence to think so. On the other hand, wind power requires rare earth metals that are mined in open pit hellscapes in Mongolia. [1] That doesn't look very environmentally friendly. And of course solar panels are for now just acres and acres of e-waste that gets buried in poor countries. Battery storage requires huge quantities of lithium. A single Tesla battery pack generates as much CO2 in production as an entire ICE car does in manufacture. There is of course more than enough uranium. There's billions of tons dissolved in seawater, enough for 100,000 years of current electric capacity. In fact a new gel was just discovered to make extraction much more efficient. [2] That 4 billion tons is actually replenished as it's extracted from geological processes. There is plenty of Uranium for conventional fission reactors. By most measures, existing nuclear power schemes are renewable. Then, breeder reactors require some 100x less uranium, and CANDU reactors can already operate on thorium cycle. There is no perfect solution, and meeting our energy needs at minimum CO2 requires a variety of energy sources. I'm not opposed to renewables at all. By all means, build away. [1] https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20150402-the-worst-place-on-earth https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20150402-the-worst-place-... [2] https://bigthink.com/hard-science/extract-uranium-seawater/ https://bigthink.com/hard-science/extract-uranium-seawater/

moloch-hai 4y ago
Wind power does not, in fact, require rare-earth metals. Rare-earth metals are now being mined (mainly for fractional-horsepower motors) in other places.
- arcticbull 4y ago
  There have always been rare earth metals outside of China, but the reason they're mined in China is only China has been willing to pay the environmental cost associated with their extraction, processing and refinement. As the peer comment pointed out you can have copper-only turbines but copper mining is an equally brutal process. [1, 2] Fun fact: copper is frequently co-located with uranium, radium and thorium. In-situ leaching can transport uranium and thorium into groundwater or surface water at the processing site. [2] [1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/09/copper-mining-reveals-clean-energy-dark-side https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/09/copper-minin... [2] https://www.epa.gov/radiation/tenorm-copper-mining-and-production-wastes https://www.epa.gov/radiation/tenorm-copper-mining-and-produ...
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    I did not, in fact, just point out you could have copper only turbines. I pointed out that there were also purely aluminum wound ones. Additionally trying to scare about the effects of copper ISL when nuclear needs the copper and then also leaching (in situ or above) vastly higher quantities of ore which transports far more of those doesn't really help your point.
Schroedingersat 4y ago
> Ok, but what makes you think that this will be an issue elsewhere going forward? The fact that it's an issue right now? The fact that it's not an accident but standard operating procedure? > On the other hand, wind power requires rare earth metals that are mined in open pit hellscapes in Mongolia. [1] That doesn't look very environmentally friendly. More lies. https://www.vestas.com/content/dam/vestas-com/global/en/sustainability/reports-and-ratings/lcas/LCA%20of%20Electricity%20Production%20from%20an%20onshore%20V150-4.2,%204.5MW%20Wind%20Plant_Final.Web.pdf.coredownload.inline.pdf https://www.vestas.com/content/dam/vestas-com/global/en/sust... Where are the rare earths? Enercon even got rid of the copper. > And of course solar panels are for now just acres and acres of e-waste that gets buried in poor countries. It's made of sand with traces of silver and lead all encased in glass. It has mandatory recycling laws in civilised countries, you're welcome to implement them (or just wait until the recycling supply chains make used panels valuable enough that it happens anyway). And there and an order of magnitude less of it than the uranium leaching fluid that gets left in unsealed dams in kadapa, or dams with no flood mitigation in Husab, or pumped directly into the ground water in Inkai or Kakadu. With your sea mining scifi you know you need to make 1-2kg of polymer and put it in the ocean for 6 months per MWh all to get around the same amount of energy per unit of water as lifting it 70 metres, right?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Kuinox 4y ago

> The propensity to consider that the technologies under development – hydrogen as an energy vector, smart-grids – can be, in a climate emergency, technologies to be deployed massively, in the moment, testifies to a profound ignorance of development deadlines. Quote from someone you probably don't like: a previous french High Commissioner for Atomic Energy.

Schroedingersat 4y ago
You're right. Instead of using things which exist and are currently scaling up we should instead go all in on technologies with insurmountable resource limits and technologies that are much less developed like breeders and sea mining.
- Kuinox 4y ago
  Renewables energy sources as called were still pushed by the same arguments back then, we can see the results today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0qg9PT-HqM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0qg9PT-HqM I'm not saying this won't work this time, but again, I ask you how sanely can you propose a fully renewable model when countries with a lot more sun struggle to do the same ? I wonder how can you be so sure of the solution you are "selling". Ironically, on my own bus line, hydrogen bus doesn't have the best carbon footprint: https://www.airliquide.com/group/press-releases-news/2018-03-28/air-liquide-opens-new-hydrogen-station-ile-de-france-fuel-frances-first-hydrogen-powered-bus-line https://www.airliquide.com/group/press-releases-news/2018-03... No, the battery powered bus, charged with low carbon, nuclear energy has the lowest carbon footprint: https://imgur.com/a/fx5MiMp https://imgur.com/a/fx5MiMp , because here, next to the Air Liquide Innovation pole, hydrogen is still made from hydrocarbons. Also these one were not paid with europe money, but the region. Disclaimer: I own 14 shares of Air Liquide SA.
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    So germany massively scaled back their renewable rollout and this is bad because they built renewables? Then an unrelated rant about hydrogen. That definitely convinced me. Good job, champ.