3 ms·

I’d like to add that there’s a negative externality with nuclear power that’s rarely talked about: they’re thermal power plants. They heat up the local environm

by audunw 2y ago

I’d like to add that there’s a negative externality with nuclear power that’s rarely talked about: they’re thermal power plants. They heat up the local environment which can sometimes be a problem depending on the setting. But more importantly: they contribute to global warming. All existing thermal power plants is only a few percent of the effect of green house gases. Nothing to worry about right now. But it means we can’t really replace all thermal power plants, and scale up energy production massively beyond that with nuclear, without creating a global warming effect that we simply can’t afford in a future when the world is already on the bring of collapse. Renewables - if we do a balanced mix, perhaps with more geothermal, wave and tidal in the future - could potentially scale the world’s energy production by 10x. Perhaps even 100x. You can’t really say that about nuclear thermal power (Helions power plant may be an exception). I will say that there’s one possible way out: radiate the heat directly to space with radiative panels. But that would essentially be reverse solar power plants and the area advantage would disappear. I also feel like advanced geothermal is threatening to eliminate nuclear power completely if the maser/plasma drilling techniques being researched works out. It’s a bit out there, but not much more than the molten salt and thorium solutions that nuclear proponents say will solve some of the critical issues around uranium fuels. I like nuclear technology though. I still support R&D there. Should hedge our bets.

defrost 2y ago
> They heat up the local environment which can sometimes be a problem depending on the setting. But more importantly: they contribute to global warming. Do they? By all means accurately work through the numbers here please. Let me stress, I'm neither for nor against nuclear, but I do have an issue with poor arguments. Global warming (AGW) is not a problem caused by humans putting out more heat. Daily human generated heat is small by comparison with daily heating of the planet by the sun (by what magnitude? Exercise for those with an in interest). AGW is almost entirely due to increased insulation - more greenhouse gases cause more of the heat generated second hand from incoming visible light to remain trapped in the low atmosphere | earth | sea layer.
- ggm 2y ago
  (not the GP you're responding to) My belief is, that their effect is predominantly local: they alter the biome in the water outflow, because of the thermal mass they dump. They alter the local hydrology and winds because of the thermal cooling towers. I don't think this is a significant contribution to AGW, their net contribution is positive/helpful. But warmer water around water cooled nuclear plants is not benign, and there are things like massive jellyfish swarms which can cause problems. Soaring birds love thermals at power stations, as do glider pilots. Osmotic de-salination plants cause problems, Tidal Barrier power plants cause problems, There are always problems. At scale, you have to get good people to do the sums on cost:benefit. That was the root cause for my OP post: this is a linear optimisation problem.
  - defrost 2y ago
    Indeed, many hunam facilities put heat out into the environment, even the non human living biomass has an IR signature. Not just heat, we're moving into times when more and more fresh water will be desalinated water which implies higher concentrations of removed sea salts about more and larger plant outflows. Our need for batteries, solar, and all things solar is increasing local amounts of radioactive waste (hey, I'm pro solar, but these are genuine by products). Copper mines, and we apparently need many more, suck for indigenous people everywhere. Side effects everwhere it seems. The key issue in the context of the GP comment is that human and biomass generated heat isn't a large part of the increasing levels of trapped heat globally .. that is heat that comes from the sun, as it always has, and is now increasingly held by greater insulation levels - which we humans very much are responsible for.

by audunw 2y ago

defrost 2y ago

> They heat up the local environment which can sometimes be a problem depending on the setting. But more importantly: they contribute to global warming. Do they? By all means accurately work through the numbers here please. Let me stress, I'm neither for nor against nuclear, but I do have an issue with poor arguments. Global warming (AGW) is not a problem caused by humans putting out more heat. Daily human generated heat is small by comparison with daily heating of the planet by the sun (by what magnitude? Exercise for those with an in interest). AGW is almost entirely due to increased insulation - more greenhouse gases cause more of the heat generated second hand from incoming visible light to remain trapped in the low atmosphere | earth | sea layer.

ggm 2y ago
(not the GP you're responding to) My belief is, that their effect is predominantly local: they alter the biome in the water outflow, because of the thermal mass they dump. They alter the local hydrology and winds because of the thermal cooling towers. I don't think this is a significant contribution to AGW, their net contribution is positive/helpful. But warmer water around water cooled nuclear plants is not benign, and there are things like massive jellyfish swarms which can cause problems. Soaring birds love thermals at power stations, as do glider pilots. Osmotic de-salination plants cause problems, Tidal Barrier power plants cause problems, There are always problems. At scale, you have to get good people to do the sums on cost:benefit. That was the root cause for my OP post: this is a linear optimisation problem.
- defrost 2y ago
  Indeed, many hunam facilities put heat out into the environment, even the non human living biomass has an IR signature. Not just heat, we're moving into times when more and more fresh water will be desalinated water which implies higher concentrations of removed sea salts about more and larger plant outflows. Our need for batteries, solar, and all things solar is increasing local amounts of radioactive waste (hey, I'm pro solar, but these are genuine by products). Copper mines, and we apparently need many more, suck for indigenous people everywhere. Side effects everwhere it seems. The key issue in the context of the GP comment is that human and biomass generated heat isn't a large part of the increasing levels of trapped heat globally .. that is heat that comes from the sun, as it always has, and is now increasingly held by greater insulation levels - which we humans very much are responsible for.