4 ms·

The only clean energy that is capable of producing constant power is nuclear power.

alternative_a 3y ago
The notion of clean in context of energy is environmental in nature. Nuclear is “clean” in context of green house effect and carbon footprint only. It is not clean in the wider scope of Earth’s environment. For it to be truly clean, we need to address operational risk and by product disposal to an extent that damage to the environment, thus “clean”, is effectively impossible. The ‘substantial’ aspects of nuclear energy place generational demands on humanity and whoever will inherit the earth after humans. No other energy source places this burden on humanity. None.
- polotics 3y ago
  Not at all true that nuclear puts more generational demand that any of the other energy sources, taking scale into consideration. Just compute how many wind-turbine poles, how many eventually-leaky solar panels, how much surface of land used up, or flooded, for a given MWh of generated power: Nuclear is arguably least impact. And scrubbing CO2 is going to be a massive undertaking, most likely will not be undertaken, again the generational impact is enormous, a lot more than some localized dump with Cesium, even if not buried as it should, and will, be.
  - alternative_a 3y ago
    Be honest. Are you worried e.g. that some future post Armageddon creatures are going to bring disaster to themselves because of mucking around with some remnants of wind turbines out in the sea? The risks of nuclear fission by products are open ended. The effects you are mentioning are all bounded, and well understood. “Substantial” aspects mean nuclear fission by products. This matter is just that: matter. It exists regardless of any other consideration. It comes into being because of the fission process. This coming into being creates the “burden” I was talking about. Until we can safely send them to orbit and then to deep space it will not be “clean”. Of course then we’re polluting deep space.
    - kgabis 3y ago
      Storing spent nuclear fuel is a well understood problem, we can do it safely and it doesn't put future generations at risk.
      - alternative_a 3y ago
        I am interested in learning more. Can you elaborate on the parameters of the risk models? Is continuity of any technological competencies assumed? Stuff like that. (TIA)
        credit_guy 3y ago
        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_Isolation_Pilot_Plant https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_Isolation_Pilot_Plant
        alternative_a 3y ago
        Thank you.
        Moldoteck 3y ago
        Vitrification(solidification) and store safely underground somewhere with smaller risks of earthquakes. Ideally you would want the fuel to be reprocessed(like France did it) or to be used by a breeding reactor, this way the waste will be more dangerous only for about 300 years(it'll still be radioactive after but much less compared to waste that wasn't reprocessed or used by a breeding reactor. Why it's not done? It costs more money and most countries decided for now it's ok without these steps and breeding reactors kinda exist but are too few and not very well studied to build more
        alternative_a 3y ago
        Thank you. I mentioned risk models in another comment. In your opinion, is nuclear energy safe from irrational (state) actors? For clarification, note that even hydroelectric energy has a risk factor that it can not be protected against irrational state actors. Recent events in Ukraine a case in point. And that ‘system failure’ did have environmental impact. The point I am trying to make regarding nuclear (fission) energy is that hazard and catastrophe are a continual concern, and will remain so long after we are gone. Unquestionably, nuclear fission is far less damaging than many other energy systems but on the hazard side of the equation it stands alone. We rely on various wishful thoughts, such as assured grasp of human competence, greed, rationality, to say nothing of failures in other systems (such as software guidance for missiles) and also acts of God such as geological events. And for how long? For the lifetime of the existence of the hazardous material and processes.
polotics 3y ago
Hydro also fits the bill, mostly, and when there's not enough water in your river for hydro, well the nuclear plant's also got to respect heat-emission norms...
- kgabis 3y ago
  Not really, hydro does a lot of damage to ecosystems, blocks fish migration and can be weaponized (like it was in Ukraine during WW2 and earlier this year). And when it comes to greenhouse emissions it takes many years to offset carbon from decaying matter when a new reservoir is built.
cduzz 3y ago
The only clean energy that's capable of producing constant power is if we put the power plants on the sun! There may be minor technical hurdles but only nattering naysayers think they're impossible to overcome. If we can put people on the moon, we can certainly put them on the sun. This is, of course, satire. There is every evidence that yes, nuclear energy is a viable base load generator that would be tremendously useful for a wide variety of scenarios (as putting power plants on the sun would also be a tremendously useful technology). It's also clear that there are serious, possibly impossible to overcome technical reasons why these plants haven't really been deployed in great numbers (other than france in the 70s), and haven't been proven to be economically viable. "It would be economically viable if we focused our whole global economic output on developing the technology to make standardized, modular power plants, and then if we eliminate most regulation everywhere except where I and my kids live and go to school" is maybe true, but also probably not realistic. Fusion power from the sun, though, has proven to be pretty economically viable.
gorkish 3y ago
> The only* clean* energy that is capable of producing constant* power is nuclear* power. That's quite the definitive statement to include so many subjective things.

The notion of clean in context of energy is environmental in nature. Nuclear is “clean” in context of green house effect and carbon footprint only. It is not clean in the wider scope of Earth’s environment. For it to be truly clean, we need to address operational risk and by product disposal to an extent that damage to the environment, thus “clean”, is effectively impossible. The ‘substantial’ aspects of nuclear energy place generational demands on humanity and whoever will inherit the earth after humans. No other energy source places this burden on humanity. None.

polotics 3y ago
Not at all true that nuclear puts more generational demand that any of the other energy sources, taking scale into consideration. Just compute how many wind-turbine poles, how many eventually-leaky solar panels, how much surface of land used up, or flooded, for a given MWh of generated power: Nuclear is arguably least impact. And scrubbing CO2 is going to be a massive undertaking, most likely will not be undertaken, again the generational impact is enormous, a lot more than some localized dump with Cesium, even if not buried as it should, and will, be.
- alternative_a 3y ago
  Be honest. Are you worried e.g. that some future post Armageddon creatures are going to bring disaster to themselves because of mucking around with some remnants of wind turbines out in the sea? The risks of nuclear fission by products are open ended. The effects you are mentioning are all bounded, and well understood. “Substantial” aspects mean nuclear fission by products. This matter is just that: matter. It exists regardless of any other consideration. It comes into being because of the fission process. This coming into being creates the “burden” I was talking about. Until we can safely send them to orbit and then to deep space it will not be “clean”. Of course then we’re polluting deep space.
  - kgabis 3y ago
    Storing spent nuclear fuel is a well understood problem, we can do it safely and it doesn't put future generations at risk.
    - alternative_a 3y ago
      I am interested in learning more. Can you elaborate on the parameters of the risk models? Is continuity of any technological competencies assumed? Stuff like that. (TIA)
      - credit_guy 3y ago
        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_Isolation_Pilot_Plant https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_Isolation_Pilot_Plant
        alternative_a 3y ago
        Thank you.
      - Moldoteck 3y ago
        Vitrification(solidification) and store safely underground somewhere with smaller risks of earthquakes. Ideally you would want the fuel to be reprocessed(like France did it) or to be used by a breeding reactor, this way the waste will be more dangerous only for about 300 years(it'll still be radioactive after but much less compared to waste that wasn't reprocessed or used by a breeding reactor. Why it's not done? It costs more money and most countries decided for now it's ok without these steps and breeding reactors kinda exist but are too few and not very well studied to build more
        alternative_a 3y ago
        Thank you. I mentioned risk models in another comment. In your opinion, is nuclear energy safe from irrational (state) actors? For clarification, note that even hydroelectric energy has a risk factor that it can not be protected against irrational state actors. Recent events in Ukraine a case in point. And that ‘system failure’ did have environmental impact. The point I am trying to make regarding nuclear (fission) energy is that hazard and catastrophe are a continual concern, and will remain so long after we are gone. Unquestionably, nuclear fission is far less damaging than many other energy systems but on the hazard side of the equation it stands alone. We rely on various wishful thoughts, such as assured grasp of human competence, greed, rationality, to say nothing of failures in other systems (such as software guidance for missiles) and also acts of God such as geological events. And for how long? For the lifetime of the existence of the hazardous material and processes.

polotics 3y ago

Hydro also fits the bill, mostly, and when there's not enough water in your river for hydro, well the nuclear plant's also got to respect heat-emission norms...

kgabis 3y ago
Not really, hydro does a lot of damage to ecosystems, blocks fish migration and can be weaponized (like it was in Ukraine during WW2 and earlier this year). And when it comes to greenhouse emissions it takes many years to offset carbon from decaying matter when a new reservoir is built.

cduzz 3y ago

The only clean energy that's capable of producing constant power is if we put the power plants on the sun! There may be minor technical hurdles but only nattering naysayers think they're impossible to overcome. If we can put people on the moon, we can certainly put them on the sun. This is, of course, satire. There is every evidence that yes, nuclear energy is a viable base load generator that would be tremendously useful for a wide variety of scenarios (as putting power plants on the sun would also be a tremendously useful technology). It's also clear that there are serious, possibly impossible to overcome technical reasons why these plants haven't really been deployed in great numbers (other than france in the 70s), and haven't been proven to be economically viable. "It would be economically viable if we focused our whole global economic output on developing the technology to make standardized, modular power plants, and then if we eliminate most regulation everywhere except where I and my kids live and go to school" is maybe true, but also probably not realistic. Fusion power from the sun, though, has proven to be pretty economically viable.

gorkish 3y ago

> The only* clean* energy that is capable of producing constant* power is nuclear* power. That's quite the definitive statement to include so many subjective things.