12 ms·

Fission stans are just going to stand on the sidelines seething while solar, wind, and storage accelerate. The world is deploying an amount of PV every year equ

Fission stans are just going to stand on the sidelines seething while solar, wind, and storage accelerate. The world is deploying an amount of PV every year equal to the total cumulative output of all the fission stations built in history.

jjoonathan 3y ago
Maybe in a year or two renewables will reach the deployment rate of fission 40 years ago. I'm glad the green energy transition has finally lurched back into motion, but no, I do not think it was worth the 200 gigatons of CO2 we dumped into the atmosphere in the meantime. I'm speaking of the US alone; multiply it up for a global perspective.
- jeffbee 3y ago
  Renewable deployment in 2023 is already 25x higher than the peak year of fission deployment.
  - jjoonathan 3y ago
    The world has developed a lot in 40 years, that's a pretty silly comparison. But let's play this game -- the cost of delay is now more like 800 gigatons of CO2. It wasn't worth it, but I'm glad the bleeding has finally begun to slow.
troupo 3y ago
Until it's a calm night and your solar panels and wind turbines produce zero electricity.
credit_guy 3y ago
I'm on of those. For those not familiar with this slang term, "stan" comes from a song of Eminem, an American rapper, and means fanatic. I'm not seething at all. I'm cheering. Solar and wind are on an exponential trajectory in the US too. I'm am really happy for that. It does not mean we should not pursue fission. But I'm a pro-technology guy. I can't easily understand how 80 years ago we got to the point of harnessing a source of energy ten million times more dense than fossil fuels, and then we collectively decide to just give it up. And I don't buy any of the arguments of the anti-technology crowd: it's too expensive, it's too dangerous, it's too easy to make bombs. Nuclear technology is indeed expensive, but all sorts of technologies can undergo a Moore's law period. Just look at the rocket technology in the era of Musk. Dangerous, yes, nuclear is not without dangers, but we've learned most of the problem cases and how to handle them. As for the danger of nuclear bombs, yes, that is there, but it's containable, and it has been contained for many decades.
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  "but we've learned most of the problem cases and how to handle them." We also learned time and time again how corrupted human society and individuals can be. So while in theory we could do nuclear safe, we often don't. Neither mining, nor maintaining, nor disposing of the waste. We got lucky quite a few times, but having more of it, will likely just result in more incidents. So while I agree that we should not give it up, I also think we should just harness more of suns fusion power of which we got plenty and invest more in storage technology (you can make batteries out of iron and saltwater for example, no rare elements needed for grid storage). Then there is also the huge energy source beneath our feet, which is fueled by fission btw. if you are more into that. Lots of opportunities ..
- Kon5ole 3y ago
  >It does not mean we should not pursue fission. But I'm a pro-technology guy. I can't easily understand how 80 years ago we got to the point of harnessing a source of energy ten million times more dense than fossil fuels, and then we collectively decide to just give it up. And I don't buy any of the arguments of the anti-technology crowd: it's too expensive, it's too dangerous, I sympathise with your sentiment here, but consider this - we have invented technology that can create electricity when placed in sunlight. Once the device is created, the electricity is free. We can generate hydrogen from this free electricity to make the power predictable, and when consumed hydrogen releases not only energy but also clean water. The devices are already so cheap that people are putting them on their personal homes, to the tune of several TWh of additional yearly capacity. More than several nuclear reactors annually in fact. Is it really likely that anything can happen to Nuclear that makes it able to compete with that? Also, consider that the main risk comes from humans, who are immune to the Moores Law period in any case.
  - credit_guy 3y ago
    > Is it really likely that anything can happen to Nuclear that makes it able to compete with that? Yes. Nuclear technology can go down in cost by a factor of 100. If that happens, it can definitely compete with solar. In fact, it can compete even if it goes down in cost by a factor of 10. You'll say that this is fantasy. And at this point it is, but there are no reasons to dismiss this as impossible. There are lots of new nuclear reactor designs. The current designs (pressurized water reactors) all need very thick pressure vessels, hundreds of tons each. There are very few forges in the world that can manufacture them (maybe 10, certainly less than 20), and they manufacture one now and then, so the prices are astronomical. The new designs either have much smaller pressure vessels (the SMRs), that can be manufactured for a cost exponentially lower, or have no pressure vessels (like liquid metal reactors or molten salt reactors). I would estimate there are about 20 essentially different designs out there. Of course there are lots of unknowns, but I think a few of them have the chance to become 100 times cheaper than the current generation of nuclear technology.

jjoonathan 3y ago

Maybe in a year or two renewables will reach the deployment rate of fission 40 years ago. I'm glad the green energy transition has finally lurched back into motion, but no, I do not think it was worth the 200 gigatons of CO2 we dumped into the atmosphere in the meantime. I'm speaking of the US alone; multiply it up for a global perspective.

jeffbee 3y ago
Renewable deployment in 2023 is already 25x higher than the peak year of fission deployment.
- jjoonathan 3y ago
  The world has developed a lot in 40 years, that's a pretty silly comparison. But let's play this game -- the cost of delay is now more like 800 gigatons of CO2. It wasn't worth it, but I'm glad the bleeding has finally begun to slow.

troupo 3y ago

Until it's a calm night and your solar panels and wind turbines produce zero electricity.

credit_guy 3y ago

I'm on of those. For those not familiar with this slang term, "stan" comes from a song of Eminem, an American rapper, and means fanatic. I'm not seething at all. I'm cheering. Solar and wind are on an exponential trajectory in the US too. I'm am really happy for that. It does not mean we should not pursue fission. But I'm a pro-technology guy. I can't easily understand how 80 years ago we got to the point of harnessing a source of energy ten million times more dense than fossil fuels, and then we collectively decide to just give it up. And I don't buy any of the arguments of the anti-technology crowd: it's too expensive, it's too dangerous, it's too easy to make bombs. Nuclear technology is indeed expensive, but all sorts of technologies can undergo a Moore's law period. Just look at the rocket technology in the era of Musk. Dangerous, yes, nuclear is not without dangers, but we've learned most of the problem cases and how to handle them. As for the danger of nuclear bombs, yes, that is there, but it's containable, and it has been contained for many decades.

hutzlibu 3y ago
"but we've learned most of the problem cases and how to handle them." We also learned time and time again how corrupted human society and individuals can be. So while in theory we could do nuclear safe, we often don't. Neither mining, nor maintaining, nor disposing of the waste. We got lucky quite a few times, but having more of it, will likely just result in more incidents. So while I agree that we should not give it up, I also think we should just harness more of suns fusion power of which we got plenty and invest more in storage technology (you can make batteries out of iron and saltwater for example, no rare elements needed for grid storage). Then there is also the huge energy source beneath our feet, which is fueled by fission btw. if you are more into that. Lots of opportunities ..
Kon5ole 3y ago
>It does not mean we should not pursue fission. But I'm a pro-technology guy. I can't easily understand how 80 years ago we got to the point of harnessing a source of energy ten million times more dense than fossil fuels, and then we collectively decide to just give it up. And I don't buy any of the arguments of the anti-technology crowd: it's too expensive, it's too dangerous, I sympathise with your sentiment here, but consider this - we have invented technology that can create electricity when placed in sunlight. Once the device is created, the electricity is free. We can generate hydrogen from this free electricity to make the power predictable, and when consumed hydrogen releases not only energy but also clean water. The devices are already so cheap that people are putting them on their personal homes, to the tune of several TWh of additional yearly capacity. More than several nuclear reactors annually in fact. Is it really likely that anything can happen to Nuclear that makes it able to compete with that? Also, consider that the main risk comes from humans, who are immune to the Moores Law period in any case.
- credit_guy 3y ago
  > Is it really likely that anything can happen to Nuclear that makes it able to compete with that? Yes. Nuclear technology can go down in cost by a factor of 100. If that happens, it can definitely compete with solar. In fact, it can compete even if it goes down in cost by a factor of 10. You'll say that this is fantasy. And at this point it is, but there are no reasons to dismiss this as impossible. There are lots of new nuclear reactor designs. The current designs (pressurized water reactors) all need very thick pressure vessels, hundreds of tons each. There are very few forges in the world that can manufacture them (maybe 10, certainly less than 20), and they manufacture one now and then, so the prices are astronomical. The new designs either have much smaller pressure vessels (the SMRs), that can be manufactured for a cost exponentially lower, or have no pressure vessels (like liquid metal reactors or molten salt reactors). I would estimate there are about 20 essentially different designs out there. Of course there are lots of unknowns, but I think a few of them have the chance to become 100 times cheaper than the current generation of nuclear technology.