4 ms·

Why I Started Valar Atomics: How To Reach The Atomic Age

audunw 3y ago
What Samo Burja is saying in this video is what worries me about some nuclear proponents: they seem to think if we just bet heavily on nuclear we can make 10x, 100x, even 1000x as much energy without any limits on growth. But thermal power plants actually contribute to global warming by directly heating the planet. The effect is surprisingly large. Within a couple of orders of magnitude of CO2 emissions. So if we’re talking about scaling up the use of thermal power plants by several orders of magnitude we’re going I have a problem. And they’re often dumping heat directly in rivers and shorelines, which is not ideal. I suspect to sustainably scale nuclear energy we will need to radiate their waste heat directly to space with thermal radiation panels. So essentially reverse solar power. But then you need a lot more area for these panels. It’s pretty clear that renewables will lead to an extreme abundance of energy. Check Tony Sebas presentation for some good projections. So I don’t see why we’d need all this nuclear anyway. Except for space of course. That’s one reason why I still support large investments in nuclear R&D (hedging our bets is another good reason)
- MrBuddyCasino 3y ago
  > It’s pretty clear that renewables will lead to an extreme abundance of energy. Its pretty clear they won't, because of the intermittent output issue and the price of storage. Germany has been on the forefront of renewable energy, and our energy security and price has only gotten worse over time. Its gotten so bad that we are de-industrialising energy-intensive sectors right now.
audunw 3y ago
Thread link: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1777819087357481316.html https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1777819087357481316.html I find the argument about how bad electricity is extremely unconvincing. It’s very clear that EVs will eventually match or even surpass ICE cars on range, at the same weight. There are battery cells in the lab that can do this, it’s just a matter of finding the chemistry that can do it with good cycle life and other key properties as well. And of course they do this while being far more energy efficient. Electricity is the only energy infrastructure we truly need. It’s entirely feasible to get completely rid of the gas/gasoline energy infrastructure and only distribute electricity. But going the other way is unimaginable. I suspect that CO2 to gas/fuel solutions will at best be a temporary solution. Electricity energy storage will be the primary economic/technology driver for decades. Everything in society is being improved by improving batteries. There are already staggering amounts of R&D growth in this area and it will not slow down. Long range airplanes may always need hydrogen or hydrocarbon fuels. But I suspect that will be made on-site at airports eventually, using electricity from the grid or a co-located solar power plant. One more thing: I don’t see how nuclear energy could ever beat renewables for making synthetic gas/fuel if the capital costs of building the synthesis plants become low enough that you can produce only when electricity is cheapest: then they can just run on excess renewables, which is free. Like the author touched on: the products are easy to store in time and space. So no need to produce continuously. Nuclear energy will never be free.

What Samo Burja is saying in this video is what worries me about some nuclear proponents: they seem to think if we just bet heavily on nuclear we can make 10x, 100x, even 1000x as much energy without any limits on growth. But thermal power plants actually contribute to global warming by directly heating the planet. The effect is surprisingly large. Within a couple of orders of magnitude of CO2 emissions. So if we’re talking about scaling up the use of thermal power plants by several orders of magnitude we’re going I have a problem. And they’re often dumping heat directly in rivers and shorelines, which is not ideal. I suspect to sustainably scale nuclear energy we will need to radiate their waste heat directly to space with thermal radiation panels. So essentially reverse solar power. But then you need a lot more area for these panels. It’s pretty clear that renewables will lead to an extreme abundance of energy. Check Tony Sebas presentation for some good projections. So I don’t see why we’d need all this nuclear anyway. Except for space of course. That’s one reason why I still support large investments in nuclear R&D (hedging our bets is another good reason)

MrBuddyCasino 3y ago
> It’s pretty clear that renewables will lead to an extreme abundance of energy. Its pretty clear they won't, because of the intermittent output issue and the price of storage. Germany has been on the forefront of renewable energy, and our energy security and price has only gotten worse over time. Its gotten so bad that we are de-industrialising energy-intensive sectors right now.

audunw 3y ago

Thread link: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1777819087357481316.html https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1777819087357481316.html I find the argument about how bad electricity is extremely unconvincing. It’s very clear that EVs will eventually match or even surpass ICE cars on range, at the same weight. There are battery cells in the lab that can do this, it’s just a matter of finding the chemistry that can do it with good cycle life and other key properties as well. And of course they do this while being far more energy efficient. Electricity is the only energy infrastructure we truly need. It’s entirely feasible to get completely rid of the gas/gasoline energy infrastructure and only distribute electricity. But going the other way is unimaginable. I suspect that CO2 to gas/fuel solutions will at best be a temporary solution. Electricity energy storage will be the primary economic/technology driver for decades. Everything in society is being improved by improving batteries. There are already staggering amounts of R&D growth in this area and it will not slow down. Long range airplanes may always need hydrogen or hydrocarbon fuels. But I suspect that will be made on-site at airports eventually, using electricity from the grid or a co-located solar power plant. One more thing: I don’t see how nuclear energy could ever beat renewables for making synthetic gas/fuel if the capital costs of building the synthesis plants become low enough that you can produce only when electricity is cheapest: then they can just run on excess renewables, which is free. Like the author touched on: the products are easy to store in time and space. So no need to produce continuously. Nuclear energy will never be free.