5 ms·

> Also you are overplaying the amount of panels covering land and sea. Oh, what's the amount of land & sea needed to rely on solar then? I also wonder (not as

> Also you are overplaying the amount of panels covering land and sea. Oh, what's the amount of land & sea needed to rely on solar then? I also wonder (not asking) about the resources to make and replace each panel every 30 years vs the equivalent of making and maintaining nuclear plants. > Reality is that solar is being built at a much faster pace than predicted I see, so the Christmas wish is coming true! Ideally, I'd like to see the NRC dial back it's strict regulations. That's the main reason nuclear development is slow here. Other countries build nuclear much cheaper and quicker, just as safe. That's my Christmas wish.

jnsaff2 3y ago
Which other countries are building nuclear in a meaningful capacity? We need a reactor going online each week to make a dent. Not disagreeing that the regulations in the US are way too onerous for nuclear.
- Ygg2 3y ago
  Your ignoring the externalities of solar and wind power. Ignoring externalities of fossil fuels is what got us here in the first place. What happens if in 30 years we have to discuss nano PV particulates in blood and great PV patch in some ocean?
  - flir 3y ago
    Good thing nothing like that ever happens with nuclear. ("Externalities of wind power"? Oh.... is this bird strikes?)
    - mrmanner 3y ago
      > ("Externalities of wind power"? Oh.... is this bird strikes?) Noise is problematic for wildlife, and in some areas we tend to build wind power in previously quiet areas.
      - flir 3y ago
        Yeah, I'm just reading up on the subject. Apparently a badly placed wind farm can have knock-on effects on the whole food web. We quickly reach a "never do anything" impasse though.
      - jnsaff2 3y ago
        This is like the peak of bikeshedding. Completely forgets the impact of climate change to the ecosystems.
        mrmanner 3y ago
        No, climate change is a far bigger problem. No one argues otherwise. There’s a pervasive idea, though, that renewable electricity production is harmless so there’s no point focusing on and avoiding waste. Adding to that, by acknowledging the harms of wind power we can locate it where it’s less harmful. Near cities or at sea, instead of destroying the few quiet places.
    - defrost 3y ago
      If, as you say, you're reading up on the subject, side effects of wind power (and increased electric networks with solar, batteries, etc) are increased mining and concentrate processing of copper, nickel, lithium, etc. Not being a scaremonger, these are just real costs that come along for the ride into a brave new future. Spodumene processing in Malaysia from Australian concentrates (Mt. Weld, etc) to produce litium for batteries creates massive acid dams of wate and tonnes of radioactive waste. Copper mining has always been problematic (albeit out of sight for many) and much more of that is called for. Without being pro or anti any of the possible solutions for power generation we need moving forward, they all have toxic waste issues that bear looking into.
      - jnsaff2 3y ago
        4 billion tonnes of coal mined per year. 2021 produced 50 thousand tons of pure lithium. Coal gets used ONCE, lithium stores energy thousands of times before recycling to do it again. This kind of context is important before whatabouting.
        defrost 3y ago
        Coal has peaked, is on a plateau, and will decline and continue so, according to the IEA. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38652273 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38652273 Lithium, Copper, Nickel, and a slew of other minerals and elements are on the increase and have some serious waste products. The comparison here is to > Good thing nothing like that ever happens with nuclear. (with implied /s) with the rational response that all resources come with a downside. This kind of context is important before whatabouting. You've whatabout'd by dragging in coal.
        flir 3y ago
        Lets try rephrasing it. Given that we need about 580m terajoules (source https://www.theworldcounts.com/challenges/climate-change/energy/global-energy-consumption https://www.theworldcounts.com/challenges/climate-change/ene...) what's the least worst way of achieving that? Mixed, obviously, and different mixes in different parts of the world, but what should be our first-choice energy source? Assume fusion's off the table for now, lets stick with things that already exist. My gut feeling is that wind, with its primarily local ecological impacts that are able to be minimised with careful placement and design, is a strong candidate for least-worst solution. The catastrophic failure mode of a wind farm does a lot less damage than the catastrohopic failure mode of a nuclear reactor, for a start. I do realise a lot of that wind power is probably going to end up in batteries (I'm hopeful for StEnSEA, but like fusion it's a bit Real Soon Now).
  - mrmanner 3y ago
    “Nano PV particulates” are mostly sand, and mostly harmless. All forms of electricity production have negative externalities, we want to minimize those so internalizing them is good policy. Goes for nuclear waste (dangerous, there’s no long-term plan) and PV waste (large amounts, maybe reusable, there’s no mid-term plan), as well as fossil fuel waste (all of the above).
    - Ygg2 3y ago
      And plastic is mostly oil. But that's not the whole picture is it? PV aren't just sand, if they were my windows would be PV. Small impurities matter over long times and large quantities. Also wrong on long term plan for nuclear. Long term plan is wait. Radioactivity reduces itself with time.
      - mrmanner 3y ago
        > Impurities matter Yes, we need to recycle the materials. Landfill is not a viable solution for any waste, none of that is unique to solar power. > Long term plan is wait Waiting a lifetime is easy. Waiting hundreds of generations after we’re dead is not. Is that an argument against nuclear power? Not in my opinion. There’s still no finalized plan describing how waiting will work in practice though.
    - troupo 3y ago
      > Goes for nuclear waste (dangerous, there’s no long-term plan) 90% of nuclear waste is harmless within a year or two. The rest is so dense, that it fits a couple of trucks, and can be stored indefinitely long in a very small storage
      - mrmanner 3y ago
        Stored indefinitely until a curious explorer decides to investigate the unknown tomb of the gods of the third millennium, and… voila. I’m convinces we’ll solve storage by reusing the waste - but it’s not a solved problem by any stretch.
  - jnsaff2 3y ago
    You are talking about mostly unknown maybe externalities. I’m talking about the massive externality of climate change that is certain. Waiting for nuclear to maybe get its shit together is not a gamble that we can take. That said, I have nothing against nuclear. It’s just not happening unfortunately.
    - Ygg2 3y ago
      Sure, I never said give up on solar, PV, wind, etc. Give up on coal, oil and gas, but carefully consider your options to do so. My point is even plastic packaging was invented to deal with problems of previous packing techniques namely glass, tin, paper, etc. Now we have a huge plastic environment issues.
flir 3y ago
I got curious so I googled: https://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/energy/2015/05/21/fact-checking-elon-musks-blue-square-how-much-solar-to-power-the-us/ https://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/energy/2015/05/21/fact-checking-elon... Seems doable to be honest, even if you assume real-world inefficiencies and double or triple the area required. Especially when you fold it into existing infrastructure (eg solar panels on buildings).
gforce_de 3y ago
1 TW needs an area of 173 x 173 Km = ~30.000 Km². These are 0.02% of the earth landmass. Values are like this, when calculating conservative: 1 KWp needs an area around 10m². For enough maintenance distance multiply by 3 = 30m². => 1 Megawatt = 3 * 10m² * 1000 = 30.000m². => 1 Gigawatt = 3 * 10m² * 1000 * 1000 = 30.000.000m². => 1 Terawatt = 3 * 10m² * 1000 * 1000 * 1000 = 30.000.000.000m². Square root of 30.000.000.000m² = 173205m = 173Km. According to statista.com, the total earth landmass is 149.000.000 Km², so 30.000m² are 0.02% auf 149 million Km².
Kon5ole 3y ago
There's a catch-22 in your wish. Nuclear is safe because of the regulations, and if you remove the regulations its not safe. The regulations make it expensive, but the lack of regulations is very likely to make it much much much much more expensive, very suddenly.
- mensetmanusman 3y ago
  Other countries with safe nuclear have 4-5x faster regulatory oversight.
ben_w 3y ago
> Oh, what's the amount of land & sea needed to rely on solar then? 7.6% of Nevada http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28US%20power%20consumption%20%2F%20%280.1%2A0.2%2A1kW%2Fm%5E2%29%29%20%2F%20area%20nevada http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28US%20power%20consump...

jnsaff2 3y ago

Which other countries are building nuclear in a meaningful capacity? We need a reactor going online each week to make a dent. Not disagreeing that the regulations in the US are way too onerous for nuclear.

Ygg2 3y ago
Your ignoring the externalities of solar and wind power. Ignoring externalities of fossil fuels is what got us here in the first place. What happens if in 30 years we have to discuss nano PV particulates in blood and great PV patch in some ocean?
- flir 3y ago
  Good thing nothing like that ever happens with nuclear. ("Externalities of wind power"? Oh.... is this bird strikes?)
  - mrmanner 3y ago
    > ("Externalities of wind power"? Oh.... is this bird strikes?) Noise is problematic for wildlife, and in some areas we tend to build wind power in previously quiet areas.
    - flir 3y ago
      Yeah, I'm just reading up on the subject. Apparently a badly placed wind farm can have knock-on effects on the whole food web. We quickly reach a "never do anything" impasse though.
    - jnsaff2 3y ago
      This is like the peak of bikeshedding. Completely forgets the impact of climate change to the ecosystems.
      - mrmanner 3y ago
        No, climate change is a far bigger problem. No one argues otherwise. There’s a pervasive idea, though, that renewable electricity production is harmless so there’s no point focusing on and avoiding waste. Adding to that, by acknowledging the harms of wind power we can locate it where it’s less harmful. Near cities or at sea, instead of destroying the few quiet places.
  - defrost 3y ago
    If, as you say, you're reading up on the subject, side effects of wind power (and increased electric networks with solar, batteries, etc) are increased mining and concentrate processing of copper, nickel, lithium, etc. Not being a scaremonger, these are just real costs that come along for the ride into a brave new future. Spodumene processing in Malaysia from Australian concentrates (Mt. Weld, etc) to produce litium for batteries creates massive acid dams of wate and tonnes of radioactive waste. Copper mining has always been problematic (albeit out of sight for many) and much more of that is called for. Without being pro or anti any of the possible solutions for power generation we need moving forward, they all have toxic waste issues that bear looking into.
    - jnsaff2 3y ago
      4 billion tonnes of coal mined per year. 2021 produced 50 thousand tons of pure lithium. Coal gets used ONCE, lithium stores energy thousands of times before recycling to do it again. This kind of context is important before whatabouting.
      - defrost 3y ago
        Coal has peaked, is on a plateau, and will decline and continue so, according to the IEA. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38652273 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38652273 Lithium, Copper, Nickel, and a slew of other minerals and elements are on the increase and have some serious waste products. The comparison here is to > Good thing nothing like that ever happens with nuclear. (with implied /s) with the rational response that all resources come with a downside. This kind of context is important before whatabouting. You've whatabout'd by dragging in coal.
        flir 3y ago
        Lets try rephrasing it. Given that we need about 580m terajoules (source https://www.theworldcounts.com/challenges/climate-change/energy/global-energy-consumption https://www.theworldcounts.com/challenges/climate-change/ene...) what's the least worst way of achieving that? Mixed, obviously, and different mixes in different parts of the world, but what should be our first-choice energy source? Assume fusion's off the table for now, lets stick with things that already exist. My gut feeling is that wind, with its primarily local ecological impacts that are able to be minimised with careful placement and design, is a strong candidate for least-worst solution. The catastrophic failure mode of a wind farm does a lot less damage than the catastrohopic failure mode of a nuclear reactor, for a start. I do realise a lot of that wind power is probably going to end up in batteries (I'm hopeful for StEnSEA, but like fusion it's a bit Real Soon Now).
- mrmanner 3y ago
  “Nano PV particulates” are mostly sand, and mostly harmless. All forms of electricity production have negative externalities, we want to minimize those so internalizing them is good policy. Goes for nuclear waste (dangerous, there’s no long-term plan) and PV waste (large amounts, maybe reusable, there’s no mid-term plan), as well as fossil fuel waste (all of the above).
  - Ygg2 3y ago
    And plastic is mostly oil. But that's not the whole picture is it? PV aren't just sand, if they were my windows would be PV. Small impurities matter over long times and large quantities. Also wrong on long term plan for nuclear. Long term plan is wait. Radioactivity reduces itself with time.
    - mrmanner 3y ago
      > Impurities matter Yes, we need to recycle the materials. Landfill is not a viable solution for any waste, none of that is unique to solar power. > Long term plan is wait Waiting a lifetime is easy. Waiting hundreds of generations after we’re dead is not. Is that an argument against nuclear power? Not in my opinion. There’s still no finalized plan describing how waiting will work in practice though.
  - troupo 3y ago
    > Goes for nuclear waste (dangerous, there’s no long-term plan) 90% of nuclear waste is harmless within a year or two. The rest is so dense, that it fits a couple of trucks, and can be stored indefinitely long in a very small storage
    - mrmanner 3y ago
      Stored indefinitely until a curious explorer decides to investigate the unknown tomb of the gods of the third millennium, and… voila. I’m convinces we’ll solve storage by reusing the waste - but it’s not a solved problem by any stretch.
- jnsaff2 3y ago
  You are talking about mostly unknown maybe externalities. I’m talking about the massive externality of climate change that is certain. Waiting for nuclear to maybe get its shit together is not a gamble that we can take. That said, I have nothing against nuclear. It’s just not happening unfortunately.
  - Ygg2 3y ago
    Sure, I never said give up on solar, PV, wind, etc. Give up on coal, oil and gas, but carefully consider your options to do so. My point is even plastic packaging was invented to deal with problems of previous packing techniques namely glass, tin, paper, etc. Now we have a huge plastic environment issues.

flir 3y ago

I got curious so I googled: https://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/energy/2015/05/21/fact-checking-elon-musks-blue-square-how-much-solar-to-power-the-us/ https://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/energy/2015/05/21/fact-checking-elon... Seems doable to be honest, even if you assume real-world inefficiencies and double or triple the area required. Especially when you fold it into existing infrastructure (eg solar panels on buildings).

gforce_de 3y ago

1 TW needs an area of 173 x 173 Km = ~30.000 Km². These are 0.02% of the earth landmass. Values are like this, when calculating conservative: 1 KWp needs an area around 10m². For enough maintenance distance multiply by 3 = 30m². => 1 Megawatt = 3 * 10m² * 1000 = 30.000m². => 1 Gigawatt = 3 * 10m² * 1000 * 1000 = 30.000.000m². => 1 Terawatt = 3 * 10m² * 1000 * 1000 * 1000 = 30.000.000.000m². Square root of 30.000.000.000m² = 173205m = 173Km. According to statista.com, the total earth landmass is 149.000.000 Km², so 30.000m² are 0.02% auf 149 million Km².

Kon5ole 3y ago

There's a catch-22 in your wish. Nuclear is safe because of the regulations, and if you remove the regulations its not safe. The regulations make it expensive, but the lack of regulations is very likely to make it much much much much more expensive, very suddenly.

mensetmanusman 3y ago
Other countries with safe nuclear have 4-5x faster regulatory oversight.

ben_w 3y ago

> Oh, what's the amount of land & sea needed to rely on solar then? 7.6% of Nevada http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28US%20power%20consumption%20%2F%20%280.1%2A0.2%2A1kW%2Fm%5E2%29%29%20%2F%20area%20nevada http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28US%20power%20consump...