3 ms·

> solar and wind only makes sense to use where it can offset the carbon footprint that it created when it was manufactured IIRC, PV panels become (on average)

> solar and wind only makes sense to use where it can offset the carbon footprint that it created when it was manufactured IIRC, PV panels become (on average) carbon neutral after three years of operation. Given the lifespan, this suggests that there are very few locations you can put them where they won't more than pay back the carbon emitted in their production. I'm a former nuclear fan. In anything like its current form it is a dead end, and it is past time we move on.

ravenstine 4y ago
> I'm a former nuclear fan. In anything like its current form it is a dead end, and it is past time we move on. Could you further elaborate on this take? I'm not interested in challenging you or anything, but the anti-nuclear position is often out of fear of catastophe, so it's refreshing to hear an opinion that it's a dead end.
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  I don't know that any of my opinions are particularly refreshing, but I'm happy to share them anyway. It's certainly never stopped me in the past ;-). All current reactor designs, even the most recently approved ones, are bespoke. Incredibly expensive, slow to build, relying on a lot of one-off manufacturing and a dwindling number of experts in the technology. We could overbuild wind & solar on breathtaking scales and still spend a good bit less. I suspect we will find an energy storage solution for solar (EVs is a reasonably good bet IMO) before we'll figure out how to make economical nuclear a reality. I don't worry much about catastrophe. The worst ones we have seen so far were practically non-events compared to the ongoing damage we do just with coal alone. Both of the big disastrous nuclear events have straightforward engineering solutions (and in the case of the first, we already have done that engineering). Aside from it being a bit of an eyesore, I'd happily live in close proximity to a current generation nuclear plant. I think we'd need to see a fundamental shift in our approach to nuclear before we could make it viable. Maybe something like shifting to smaller floating reactors that we could churn out in quantity. I doubt we could make it directly cost competitive with wind & solar, but maybe we could find a way to make it valuable enough to keep as an alternative. We'd also need a cultural shift, of course -- people already fear nuclear power plants and have forced them to close prematurely as a result. That's a non-trivial problem, and I don't have a solution for that. Humans aren't rational, even if we like to pretend otherwise.
- Gasp0de 4y ago
  And why would catastrophe not be a valid reason? How do you suggest we store nuclear waste for thousands of years? What if an accident happens (and they will happen, just like Fukushima and Tschernobyl) and huge amounts of land can't be used for ages? That might be an option for some sparsely populated areas but not for Europe for example. Also, renewables are an order of magnitude cheaper than nuclear.
  - ravenstine 4y ago
    I never said it wasn't.
  - mrleinad 4y ago
    What if an asteroid falls on your head right now? Better go live in an underground bunker, you can't run that risk! Just implying that a threat involves not only the real damage it might cause, but also what's the likelihood it'll actually happen.
mrleinad 4y ago
> PV panels become (on average) carbon neutral after three years of operation That depends on where you install them. Almost anywhere in Europe it doesn't make sense to use solar, and yet they're doing it.[1] [1]: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fn4clWEWAAkadtu.jpg:large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fn4clWEWAAkadtu.jpg:large
- mikeyouse 4y ago
  "Doesn't make sense" is excessively vague. Are you implying that solar in Europe doesn't reach carbon neutrality due to its lower insolation? Because based on raw photons, a panel that is carbon neutral in 3 years in a sunny place would be carbon neutral in 6 years in a setting with 1/2 the sunlight.. These critiques and the silly book's premise that since solar/wind might not break even from an embodied carbon standpoint, that somehow burning actual carbon molecules in their place is "better" are just politically correct denialism.
  - mrleinad 4y ago
    It's not silly if all there's to argue from the other point of view is photons per square meter. Weather also plays a role. I don't mean to say I have the absolute truth, I want to see if they've even considered sun availability for different regions. It seems solar proponents really haven't analyzed it from that point of view, AFAIK.
    - mikeyouse 4y ago
      As far as you know, solar proponents haven't analyzed sun availability in the regions that they're installing solar? Perhaps they have done the analysis and that's why they're spending billions of dollars installing them? The industry has seen something like 75% decreases in cost-per-watt installation costs in the past decade, I can assure you, they're doing the analysis.
      - mrleinad 4y ago
        Unless you have evidence of those calculations (which should be public of course, right? I mean, it's government spending after all) I'd say they haven't, and they have just been pouring money into a fire pit because it won them votes to say they were going green. What I mean is, I haven't seen those calculations. Have you, or are you just hoping they have done the math? I wouldn't put any faith on any politician doing any hard math on this whatsoever.

ravenstine 4y ago

> I'm a former nuclear fan. In anything like its current form it is a dead end, and it is past time we move on. Could you further elaborate on this take? I'm not interested in challenging you or anything, but the anti-nuclear position is often out of fear of catastophe, so it's refreshing to hear an opinion that it's a dead end.

rootusrootus 4y ago
I don't know that any of my opinions are particularly refreshing, but I'm happy to share them anyway. It's certainly never stopped me in the past ;-). All current reactor designs, even the most recently approved ones, are bespoke. Incredibly expensive, slow to build, relying on a lot of one-off manufacturing and a dwindling number of experts in the technology. We could overbuild wind & solar on breathtaking scales and still spend a good bit less. I suspect we will find an energy storage solution for solar (EVs is a reasonably good bet IMO) before we'll figure out how to make economical nuclear a reality. I don't worry much about catastrophe. The worst ones we have seen so far were practically non-events compared to the ongoing damage we do just with coal alone. Both of the big disastrous nuclear events have straightforward engineering solutions (and in the case of the first, we already have done that engineering). Aside from it being a bit of an eyesore, I'd happily live in close proximity to a current generation nuclear plant. I think we'd need to see a fundamental shift in our approach to nuclear before we could make it viable. Maybe something like shifting to smaller floating reactors that we could churn out in quantity. I doubt we could make it directly cost competitive with wind & solar, but maybe we could find a way to make it valuable enough to keep as an alternative. We'd also need a cultural shift, of course -- people already fear nuclear power plants and have forced them to close prematurely as a result. That's a non-trivial problem, and I don't have a solution for that. Humans aren't rational, even if we like to pretend otherwise.
Gasp0de 4y ago
And why would catastrophe not be a valid reason? How do you suggest we store nuclear waste for thousands of years? What if an accident happens (and they will happen, just like Fukushima and Tschernobyl) and huge amounts of land can't be used for ages? That might be an option for some sparsely populated areas but not for Europe for example. Also, renewables are an order of magnitude cheaper than nuclear.
- ravenstine 4y ago
  I never said it wasn't.
- mrleinad 4y ago
  What if an asteroid falls on your head right now? Better go live in an underground bunker, you can't run that risk! Just implying that a threat involves not only the real damage it might cause, but also what's the likelihood it'll actually happen.

mrleinad 4y ago

> PV panels become (on average) carbon neutral after three years of operation That depends on where you install them. Almost anywhere in Europe it doesn't make sense to use solar, and yet they're doing it.[1] [1]: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fn4clWEWAAkadtu.jpg:large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fn4clWEWAAkadtu.jpg:large

mikeyouse 4y ago
"Doesn't make sense" is excessively vague. Are you implying that solar in Europe doesn't reach carbon neutrality due to its lower insolation? Because based on raw photons, a panel that is carbon neutral in 3 years in a sunny place would be carbon neutral in 6 years in a setting with 1/2 the sunlight.. These critiques and the silly book's premise that since solar/wind might not break even from an embodied carbon standpoint, that somehow burning actual carbon molecules in their place is "better" are just politically correct denialism.
- mrleinad 4y ago
  It's not silly if all there's to argue from the other point of view is photons per square meter. Weather also plays a role. I don't mean to say I have the absolute truth, I want to see if they've even considered sun availability for different regions. It seems solar proponents really haven't analyzed it from that point of view, AFAIK.
  - mikeyouse 4y ago
    As far as you know, solar proponents haven't analyzed sun availability in the regions that they're installing solar? Perhaps they have done the analysis and that's why they're spending billions of dollars installing them? The industry has seen something like 75% decreases in cost-per-watt installation costs in the past decade, I can assure you, they're doing the analysis.
    - mrleinad 4y ago
      Unless you have evidence of those calculations (which should be public of course, right? I mean, it's government spending after all) I'd say they haven't, and they have just been pouring money into a fire pit because it won them votes to say they were going green. What I mean is, I haven't seen those calculations. Have you, or are you just hoping they have done the math? I wouldn't put any faith on any politician doing any hard math on this whatsoever.