5 ms·

More aggressive layout of solar is the best thing to do. I don't agree with all the pro-nuclear sentiment after Fukushima. It's like nuclear is always safe "now

by jasfi 2y ago

More aggressive layout of solar is the best thing to do. I don't agree with all the pro-nuclear sentiment after Fukushima. It's like nuclear is always safe "now", don't consider any previous disasters.

infecto 2y ago
While this will help, it still does not answer the baseloads. Batteries are not there yet.
- fundatus 2y ago
  Batteries are very much there and are being rolled out on a large scale globally since the price per kwh has been plummeting for years.
  - infecto 2y ago
    They most definitely are not there to take up overnight baseloads. I don't think the economics has been fully baked out yet. They are certainly rolling out but often times to replace the function of a peaker plant not a baseload plant.
  - Herz 2y ago
    This is not to say that prices will continue to decrease indefinitely; in fact, they appear to be reaching a plateau. https://assets.bbhub.io/professional/sites/24/fig1battery.png https://assets.bbhub.io/professional/sites/24/fig1battery.pn... Moreover, it is prudent to avoid relying solely on a single technology. Currently, lithium is the only type of storage that is commercially viable, and hydropower capacity in Europe is nearly maxed out. Additionally, a significant portion of lithium supply is controlled by China, which poses its own set of challenges: https://carboncredits.b-cdn.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/lithium-prices-april-2024.png https://carboncredits.b-cdn.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/l... I am optimistic about the future of storage technologies. If prices continue to fall and production increases, we could potentially use these technologies to better manage daily energy peaks by 2050. However, achieving affordable and efficient seasonal storage remains a distant and costly goal. It's also important to acknowledge that while storage technologies exist, they have yet to meet the ambitious targets we are discussing anywhere in the world, the data are promising, but they say nothing about what might happen in the future.
dukeyukey 2y ago
Even with the disasters, nuclear is damn safe. Methods like coal don't fail catastrophically, but they gradually poison the air and kill via pollution. Nuclear doesn't do that, nuclear kills all in one go, but averaged out, nuclear still kills far less. It's just sudden failure makes for better headlines.
- bayindirh 2y ago
  ...if you don't take the slow cooking of marine life in the nearby sea/lake into account. A small paper from an "Introduction to Nuclear Energy" course in Stanford: http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2019/ph241/clark1/ http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2019/ph241/clark1/
  - dukeyukey 2y ago
    Of course you don't count that. We're talking about human deaths, not environmental degradation. But even then, I'd bet the damage done from thermal pollution is far easier to manage than coal dust pollution. One is entirely localised, the other literally crosses continents.
Herz 2y ago
In what way do you think Fukushima is a disaster? Reports often associate the Fukushima disaster with 0 or 1 deaths, which is an exceptionally low number that many would prefer in any "disaster." As for the environmental impact, you can check for yourself: https://fukushima-radioactivity.jp/pc/?lang=en https://fukushima-radioactivity.jp/pc/?lang=en Virtually all neighboring towns have normal radiation levels. Even 3km from the plant, some spots show higher radiation levels (5μSv/h), which is roughly twice the dose limit for someone working at a plant. However, these areas are uninhabited, consisting of trees and roads, and are harmless even if you walked by them every day. The only significant disaster here is the economic one, amounting to several tens of billions of dollars. But in total the earthquake generated 360 billion dollars in damage.

by jasfi 2y ago

infecto 2y ago

While this will help, it still does not answer the baseloads. Batteries are not there yet.

fundatus 2y ago
Batteries are very much there and are being rolled out on a large scale globally since the price per kwh has been plummeting for years.
- infecto 2y ago
  They most definitely are not there to take up overnight baseloads. I don't think the economics has been fully baked out yet. They are certainly rolling out but often times to replace the function of a peaker plant not a baseload plant.
- Herz 2y ago
  This is not to say that prices will continue to decrease indefinitely; in fact, they appear to be reaching a plateau. https://assets.bbhub.io/professional/sites/24/fig1battery.png https://assets.bbhub.io/professional/sites/24/fig1battery.pn... Moreover, it is prudent to avoid relying solely on a single technology. Currently, lithium is the only type of storage that is commercially viable, and hydropower capacity in Europe is nearly maxed out. Additionally, a significant portion of lithium supply is controlled by China, which poses its own set of challenges: https://carboncredits.b-cdn.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/lithium-prices-april-2024.png https://carboncredits.b-cdn.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/l... I am optimistic about the future of storage technologies. If prices continue to fall and production increases, we could potentially use these technologies to better manage daily energy peaks by 2050. However, achieving affordable and efficient seasonal storage remains a distant and costly goal. It's also important to acknowledge that while storage technologies exist, they have yet to meet the ambitious targets we are discussing anywhere in the world, the data are promising, but they say nothing about what might happen in the future.

dukeyukey 2y ago

Even with the disasters, nuclear is damn safe. Methods like coal don't fail catastrophically, but they gradually poison the air and kill via pollution. Nuclear doesn't do that, nuclear kills all in one go, but averaged out, nuclear still kills far less. It's just sudden failure makes for better headlines.

bayindirh 2y ago
...if you don't take the slow cooking of marine life in the nearby sea/lake into account. A small paper from an "Introduction to Nuclear Energy" course in Stanford: http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2019/ph241/clark1/ http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2019/ph241/clark1/
- dukeyukey 2y ago
  Of course you don't count that. We're talking about human deaths, not environmental degradation. But even then, I'd bet the damage done from thermal pollution is far easier to manage than coal dust pollution. One is entirely localised, the other literally crosses continents.

Herz 2y ago

In what way do you think Fukushima is a disaster? Reports often associate the Fukushima disaster with 0 or 1 deaths, which is an exceptionally low number that many would prefer in any "disaster." As for the environmental impact, you can check for yourself: https://fukushima-radioactivity.jp/pc/?lang=en https://fukushima-radioactivity.jp/pc/?lang=en Virtually all neighboring towns have normal radiation levels. Even 3km from the plant, some spots show higher radiation levels (5μSv/h), which is roughly twice the dose limit for someone working at a plant. However, these areas are uninhabited, consisting of trees and roads, and are harmless even if you walked by them every day. The only significant disaster here is the economic one, amounting to several tens of billions of dollars. But in total the earthquake generated 360 billion dollars in damage.