4 ms·

For some value of "wouldn't be hard", I suppose. The criticism is that nuclear plants take too long to build. Building fabs to crank out semiconductor grade s

For some value of "wouldn't be hard", I suppose. The criticism is that nuclear plants take too long to build. Building fabs to crank out semiconductor grade silicon by the square kilometer isn't going to happen overnight. Not to mention that the process involves all manner of truly nasty chemicals and many tons of fresh water.

ehfoeirjrjs 3y ago
Then buy them from China until you have diversified your supply chain. This is the fundamental point, the US will avoid risking its hegemony ahead of burning the planet. And in order to do that all sorts of intellectualising needs to occur about why solar/wind/hydrogen is worse than nuclear when they provide a clean solution based on globally abundant, clean, available, simple technologies.
- Turing_Machine 3y ago
  > Then buy them from China until you have diversified your supply chain. What if China decides to stop selling them to you? > globally abundant, clean, available, simple technologies. Patent nonsense. Also, hydrogen is not an energy source to begin with. You have to use energy to make it.
  - ehfoeirjrjs 3y ago
    You’re reinforcing the point, right? That it’s geopolitical concerns that dominate here. If it will take a long time to transition to solar, you won’t be dependent on China tomorrow… And by simple I mean so fundamental a source of energy that five year olds can understand them, and they don’t require mining, radioactive waste management solutions, military control, or improved safety engineering to avoid yet more Chernobyl and Fukushima’s, not to mention they don’t provide targets for conventional weapon attacks to escalate into nuclear disasters…. Oh, and they’re decentralised/easy to deploy. Solar/Wind power are simple in those terms. And turning excess energy into hydrogen for storage is also relatively a imple but requires investment to improve the economics. But nuclear fanboys will fanboy because there is a fundamental power and control element as well as exciting physics involved. And that’s fine, as arguments go, it’s just frustrating to see simple solutions avoided for political reasons, and roadblocks put up to justify nuclear expansion and investment.
    - Turing_Machine 3y ago
      1. Producing thousands of square kilometers of semiconductor grade silicon is anything but "simple" (or environmentally benign). 2. Literally no one died from radiation at Fukushima. 3. "Nuclear fanboys" "fanboy" because it works at the necessary scale. 4. They "don't require mining"? Where do you think silicon comes from? Someone's a "fanboy" here, all right. Hint: it's not me.
      - ehfoeirjrjs 3y ago
        You didn’t address any of the negative issues around nuclear but let me address your objections. We already mine, process, and use a lot of silicon, it’s not a big deal. People did die in Fukushima, and you ‘forgot’ to mention Chernobyl. And that’s 1 in 200 reactors globally melting down. You want more? What about the 160+ countries that don’t have nuclear? Not to mention the effects on the people that had to leave, or the life expectancy lost, economic costs of cleanup etc. I think that addresses nuclear is the only tech of ‘necessary scale’ which is a nonsense argument. Of course silicon requires mining, everything requires raw materials, the point is that it’s not a big deal. The fanboy comment is because you’re making polemic statements and ignoring the points that run counter to your point of view, which now seems to be a waste of everyone’s time. Solar, Wind, Hydrogen. Simple. Abundant. Largely ignored because of geopolitical power and control implicit in nuclear tech, and so folks will argue to their and other’s death to invest in nuclear over solar panels, windmills, and some hydrogen infrastructure. That’s fine, just don’t waste people’s time arguing it’s economics or ecological or quicker. “I like nuclear” and “my country likes guns and military power” is the rational point here.

ehfoeirjrjs 3y ago

Then buy them from China until you have diversified your supply chain. This is the fundamental point, the US will avoid risking its hegemony ahead of burning the planet. And in order to do that all sorts of intellectualising needs to occur about why solar/wind/hydrogen is worse than nuclear when they provide a clean solution based on globally abundant, clean, available, simple technologies.

Turing_Machine 3y ago
> Then buy them from China until you have diversified your supply chain. What if China decides to stop selling them to you? > globally abundant, clean, available, simple technologies. Patent nonsense. Also, hydrogen is not an energy source to begin with. You have to use energy to make it.
- ehfoeirjrjs 3y ago
  You’re reinforcing the point, right? That it’s geopolitical concerns that dominate here. If it will take a long time to transition to solar, you won’t be dependent on China tomorrow… And by simple I mean so fundamental a source of energy that five year olds can understand them, and they don’t require mining, radioactive waste management solutions, military control, or improved safety engineering to avoid yet more Chernobyl and Fukushima’s, not to mention they don’t provide targets for conventional weapon attacks to escalate into nuclear disasters…. Oh, and they’re decentralised/easy to deploy. Solar/Wind power are simple in those terms. And turning excess energy into hydrogen for storage is also relatively a imple but requires investment to improve the economics. But nuclear fanboys will fanboy because there is a fundamental power and control element as well as exciting physics involved. And that’s fine, as arguments go, it’s just frustrating to see simple solutions avoided for political reasons, and roadblocks put up to justify nuclear expansion and investment.
  - Turing_Machine 3y ago
    1. Producing thousands of square kilometers of semiconductor grade silicon is anything but "simple" (or environmentally benign). 2. Literally no one died from radiation at Fukushima. 3. "Nuclear fanboys" "fanboy" because it works at the necessary scale. 4. They "don't require mining"? Where do you think silicon comes from? Someone's a "fanboy" here, all right. Hint: it's not me.
    - ehfoeirjrjs 3y ago
      You didn’t address any of the negative issues around nuclear but let me address your objections. We already mine, process, and use a lot of silicon, it’s not a big deal. People did die in Fukushima, and you ‘forgot’ to mention Chernobyl. And that’s 1 in 200 reactors globally melting down. You want more? What about the 160+ countries that don’t have nuclear? Not to mention the effects on the people that had to leave, or the life expectancy lost, economic costs of cleanup etc. I think that addresses nuclear is the only tech of ‘necessary scale’ which is a nonsense argument. Of course silicon requires mining, everything requires raw materials, the point is that it’s not a big deal. The fanboy comment is because you’re making polemic statements and ignoring the points that run counter to your point of view, which now seems to be a waste of everyone’s time. Solar, Wind, Hydrogen. Simple. Abundant. Largely ignored because of geopolitical power and control implicit in nuclear tech, and so folks will argue to their and other’s death to invest in nuclear over solar panels, windmills, and some hydrogen infrastructure. That’s fine, just don’t waste people’s time arguing it’s economics or ecological or quicker. “I like nuclear” and “my country likes guns and military power” is the rational point here.