8 ms·

Money is numbers in computers, joules and watts are real things. Coal, gas and oil is full of externalities which are nowhere near being correctly included in

by baq 2y ago

Money is numbers in computers, joules and watts are real things. Coal, gas and oil is full of externalities which are nowhere near being correctly included in the nominal prices of these commodities. Arguably neither are solar panels and wind turbines.

pfdietz 2y ago
What are these putative externalities of wind and solar? These is a constant whataboutist argument from nuclear apologists, but it falls apart when examined closely, as all pro-nuclear power arguments do.
- elzbardico 2y ago
  The fact that their system cost is prohibitive in the real world? The fact that we don’t fucking have the slightest idea of how to deal with recycling that stuff on their EOL? Or would be the fact that mining cobalt and lithium in the required quantities to indulge on the fantasy of a solar/wind based grid would poison an inordinate portion of our environment? Or would it be the fact that every single fucking country that went all in on the siren’s song of the renewable industry scammer is now plagued with absurdly high energy costs and are slipping into becoming impoverished third world de-industrialized economies like the UK and Germany?
  - pfdietz 2y ago
    You provide excellent examples of the bogosity of the arguments. Let me demolish them in turn. 1) System cost Sure, it's high. That's because we spend huge amounts of money on energy. ANY system to replace fossil fuels will be expensive, in the trillions of dollars. But if this is an argument against renewables, it's an even bigger argument against nuclear. Because nuclear is much more expensive than renewables. 2) Recycling At worst, we can bury the stuff. Recycling it is not necessary. After all, the amount of material is small compared to everything else we do in society, and it's not some special kind of waste (like high level nuclear waste) that requires some particularly unique handling. 3) Lithium and cobalt Lithium is abundant. If you hadn't been paying attention, the price has been crashing, as it pretty much always does after a price spike of a mineral resource, when the price spike encourages investment to increase the amount available. As for cobalt: probably the same is true, but why do you think cobalt is needed? 4) poison the environment This is just emotional bullshit. No, renewables would not "poison the environment". You beclown yourself with this nonsense. 5) absurdly high energy cost As opposed to those still burning fossil fuels where they are foisting off the cost of the externalities on others? Ignoring those external costs doesn't make them go away. In any case, the place that's normally pointed to is Germany, where they made a large investment in renewables from 2009-2012. Solar was much more expensive then, and they are still paying that down. But the costs of renewables crash with time, so pointing to past expenditures is grossly misleading. Going forward renewables will be much cheaper. That's why we're seeing so much investment in them now globally. One can tell the intellectual barrenness of the pro-nuclear position when you have to resort to this sort of deplorable nonsense.
    - akerl_ 2y ago
      https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. > Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
      - OrigamiPastrami 2y ago
        I strongly wish we had more comments like the one you're responding to. I find most comments here to be obnoxiously polite and I wish more ignorant opinions were publicly demolished as they should be, rather than continue to spread misinformation because it's the polite thing to do. Not all opinions are created equal.
        hollerith 2y ago
        I agree.
        elzbardico 2y ago
        Well, I may be ignorant, but the reality of the my relatives energy bill in Germany and the UK tends to agree with my ignorance. Maybe you are just smart enough to regurgitate the propaganda, but not enough to think for yourself. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/oct/01/the-man-in-charge-of-labours-green-energy-dream-its-at-the-limit-of-whats-achievable https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/oct/01/the-man-in-...
        OrigamiPastrami 2y ago
        It's more the fact that you're willfully ignorant which makes you annoying. Numerous people have already explained to you why you're wrong and you just keep repeating yourself. You're a hypocrite and you don't even realize it. I'm not going to waste my time trying to reason with an unreasonable person.
    - polotics 2y ago
      Indeed you have to look at the figures, no amount of wordage without computation will get you a true answer, still calling someone or something deplorable is, I am sorry, a dog-whistle. So to clear the air I propose you look at this substantive set of answers: https://youtu.be/Z4teA8ciuRU?si=9L-_bHawmM8MI5UA https://youtu.be/Z4teA8ciuRU?si=9L-_bHawmM8MI5UA (cc to english should work ok) https://youtu.be/s254IPHXgVA?si=FjWT5B7_Bzao0vRI https://youtu.be/s254IPHXgVA?si=FjWT5B7_Bzao0vRI
- zdragnar 2y ago
  As of now, the thermoset epoxy in turbine blades can't be recycled. Turbines optimistically last 20-25 years, which means entire generations of them have either been buried or worse, incinerated. https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/sweetwater-wind-turbine-blades-dump/ https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/sweetwater-wind-t... https://cen.acs.org/environment/recycling/companies-recycle-wind-turbine-blades/100/i27 https://cen.acs.org/environment/recycling/companies-recycle-... The same is true for solar panels. These are NOT unique problems to renewables, of course, except they tend to produce more waste compared to their energy output than other methods at the moment. Recycling is a big area of research, but is not yet especially CO2 positive for solar versus just burying them, and non existent for wind. The point isn't that the problem is impossible, but that these things are overlooked and green washed.
  - natmaka 2y ago
    Most blades are now burnt in cement killns. Burying them is forbidden in most (maybe even all, now) Western nations. Recyclable blades have recently become available (RecyclableBlade, ZEBRA, PECAN...), and there are even new ways to cope with the old ones: https://www.offshorewind.biz/2023/02/08/newly-discovered-chemical-process-renders-all-existing-wind-turbine-blades-recyclable/ https://www.offshorewind.biz/2023/02/08/newly-discovered-che... > The same is true for solar panels I doubt so, details will be welcome.
  - locallost 2y ago
    Solar panels last a lot more than 20-25 years. There is a guarantee you will still get 80% of the capacity after this time, but the panels will continue to work after that just fine.
    - zdragnar 2y ago
      Assuming they aren't hit by hail, or large branches, manufacturing defect in an onboard micro inverter, or any other reason, yes, solar panels don't just die at the year 20 mark. Instead, they supply 1/5 less power than they were originally rated for, which means the system needs to be expanded or replaced to do what it was provisioned to do.
Filligree 2y ago
On the other hand, the existence of coal power proves that releasing small amounts of radiation is fine, really. So we should be able to build a lot more nuclear power plants; it would take a lot of accidents like these to match the releases from coal.
- fsh 2y ago
  The explosion of Chernobyl released a few thousand PBq of activity. Coal contains a few tens to a few hundreds of Bq/kg. You would have to burn something like 50 times the world coal reserves (and make sure not to use any exhaust filters) in order to match the radiation release of Chernobyl.
  - jajko 2y ago
    While I like nuclear on the paper and its theoretical env impact, this one is hard to ignore. Add costs of current projects which became ridiculous in reality. Plus as we see with various wars nuclear powerplants would be a prime target for terrorists or even state actors, they are certainly not considered as excluded from wars, in contrary. If we move to renewables, over 100 years there would be 0 reason to have a single nuclear plant running anywhere, apart from making nuclear weapons fuel. I just wish we were now where we would/will be in 50 years in terms of renewables technology maturity and its spread.
    - polotics 2y ago
      Do pray tell calculate a world's energy system looping back while running purely on renewables, with electric powered mining, transport of ores, refining, panels production... You will find that you cannot, cheap (for now) fossil fuels are subsidising solar panels and wind farms massively.
      - pfdietz 2y ago
        The mining for renewables would be a small fraction of the mining for industrial society as a whole. So, if electrification cannot be done on this, industrial society as we know it is doomed, and nuclear cannot save it. Unless you're thinking we're going to have nuclear reactors in our mining vehicles...
Kon5ole 2y ago
Once you decide to run nuclear power in a country you have centuries of unavoidable costs no matter what the next government, or next ten generations of citizens decide to do. This is a unique cost consideration for nuclear power, which IMO is rarely considered by the proponents.
- pyrale 2y ago
  Negative industrial byproducts creating costs for future generations is an unique challenge? Have you heard of climate change?
  - _ph_ 2y ago
    Your argument would be valid if nuclear power would be the only option to prevent climate change. But there are other options: the various renewables, most importantly solar and wind. So it is not nuclear vs. climate change, but nuclear vs. solar/wind.
  - Kon5ole 2y ago
    Any one power plant has no measurable effect on global climate. (All fossil power plants combined worldwide have about the same emissions as all cars; about 1/6). So, if your fathers started coal plants, you close them, stop paying for them and can forget about them. this is not at all the case if your fathers started nuclear plants, not only do you have to pay, your children have to pay, all their lives, and all your grandchildren, and so on. What bugs me is the tendency of proponents to pretend that the decision is no biggie. It is a biggie. At least understand that, then we can have a rational discussion about it! Energy storage solutions and infrastructure for generating synthesized fuels (hydrogen and others) will require investments, but those investments will be a gift to the future. We will bear the burden of building the infrastructure now, but future generations will benefit from what we have built. Nuclear is the opposite, we get the benefits and the future gets the burden.
    - pyrale 2y ago
      So basically you’re so caught up in this infighting between two carbon neutral energies that you’d rather spread disinformation about climate change and the negative effects of coal…

by baq 2y ago

pfdietz 2y ago

What are these putative externalities of wind and solar? These is a constant whataboutist argument from nuclear apologists, but it falls apart when examined closely, as all pro-nuclear power arguments do.

elzbardico 2y ago
The fact that their system cost is prohibitive in the real world? The fact that we don’t fucking have the slightest idea of how to deal with recycling that stuff on their EOL? Or would be the fact that mining cobalt and lithium in the required quantities to indulge on the fantasy of a solar/wind based grid would poison an inordinate portion of our environment? Or would it be the fact that every single fucking country that went all in on the siren’s song of the renewable industry scammer is now plagued with absurdly high energy costs and are slipping into becoming impoverished third world de-industrialized economies like the UK and Germany?
- pfdietz 2y ago
  You provide excellent examples of the bogosity of the arguments. Let me demolish them in turn. 1) System cost Sure, it's high. That's because we spend huge amounts of money on energy. ANY system to replace fossil fuels will be expensive, in the trillions of dollars. But if this is an argument against renewables, it's an even bigger argument against nuclear. Because nuclear is much more expensive than renewables. 2) Recycling At worst, we can bury the stuff. Recycling it is not necessary. After all, the amount of material is small compared to everything else we do in society, and it's not some special kind of waste (like high level nuclear waste) that requires some particularly unique handling. 3) Lithium and cobalt Lithium is abundant. If you hadn't been paying attention, the price has been crashing, as it pretty much always does after a price spike of a mineral resource, when the price spike encourages investment to increase the amount available. As for cobalt: probably the same is true, but why do you think cobalt is needed? 4) poison the environment This is just emotional bullshit. No, renewables would not "poison the environment". You beclown yourself with this nonsense. 5) absurdly high energy cost As opposed to those still burning fossil fuels where they are foisting off the cost of the externalities on others? Ignoring those external costs doesn't make them go away. In any case, the place that's normally pointed to is Germany, where they made a large investment in renewables from 2009-2012. Solar was much more expensive then, and they are still paying that down. But the costs of renewables crash with time, so pointing to past expenditures is grossly misleading. Going forward renewables will be much cheaper. That's why we're seeing so much investment in them now globally. One can tell the intellectual barrenness of the pro-nuclear position when you have to resort to this sort of deplorable nonsense.
  - akerl_ 2y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. > Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
    - OrigamiPastrami 2y ago
      I strongly wish we had more comments like the one you're responding to. I find most comments here to be obnoxiously polite and I wish more ignorant opinions were publicly demolished as they should be, rather than continue to spread misinformation because it's the polite thing to do. Not all opinions are created equal.
      - hollerith 2y ago
        I agree.
      - elzbardico 2y ago
        Well, I may be ignorant, but the reality of the my relatives energy bill in Germany and the UK tends to agree with my ignorance. Maybe you are just smart enough to regurgitate the propaganda, but not enough to think for yourself. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/oct/01/the-man-in-charge-of-labours-green-energy-dream-its-at-the-limit-of-whats-achievable https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/oct/01/the-man-in-...
        OrigamiPastrami 2y ago
        It's more the fact that you're willfully ignorant which makes you annoying. Numerous people have already explained to you why you're wrong and you just keep repeating yourself. You're a hypocrite and you don't even realize it. I'm not going to waste my time trying to reason with an unreasonable person.
  - polotics 2y ago
    Indeed you have to look at the figures, no amount of wordage without computation will get you a true answer, still calling someone or something deplorable is, I am sorry, a dog-whistle. So to clear the air I propose you look at this substantive set of answers: https://youtu.be/Z4teA8ciuRU?si=9L-_bHawmM8MI5UA https://youtu.be/Z4teA8ciuRU?si=9L-_bHawmM8MI5UA (cc to english should work ok) https://youtu.be/s254IPHXgVA?si=FjWT5B7_Bzao0vRI https://youtu.be/s254IPHXgVA?si=FjWT5B7_Bzao0vRI
zdragnar 2y ago
As of now, the thermoset epoxy in turbine blades can't be recycled. Turbines optimistically last 20-25 years, which means entire generations of them have either been buried or worse, incinerated. https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/sweetwater-wind-turbine-blades-dump/ https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/sweetwater-wind-t... https://cen.acs.org/environment/recycling/companies-recycle-wind-turbine-blades/100/i27 https://cen.acs.org/environment/recycling/companies-recycle-... The same is true for solar panels. These are NOT unique problems to renewables, of course, except they tend to produce more waste compared to their energy output than other methods at the moment. Recycling is a big area of research, but is not yet especially CO2 positive for solar versus just burying them, and non existent for wind. The point isn't that the problem is impossible, but that these things are overlooked and green washed.
- natmaka 2y ago
  Most blades are now burnt in cement killns. Burying them is forbidden in most (maybe even all, now) Western nations. Recyclable blades have recently become available (RecyclableBlade, ZEBRA, PECAN...), and there are even new ways to cope with the old ones: https://www.offshorewind.biz/2023/02/08/newly-discovered-chemical-process-renders-all-existing-wind-turbine-blades-recyclable/ https://www.offshorewind.biz/2023/02/08/newly-discovered-che... > The same is true for solar panels I doubt so, details will be welcome.
- locallost 2y ago
  Solar panels last a lot more than 20-25 years. There is a guarantee you will still get 80% of the capacity after this time, but the panels will continue to work after that just fine.
  - zdragnar 2y ago
    Assuming they aren't hit by hail, or large branches, manufacturing defect in an onboard micro inverter, or any other reason, yes, solar panels don't just die at the year 20 mark. Instead, they supply 1/5 less power than they were originally rated for, which means the system needs to be expanded or replaced to do what it was provisioned to do.

Filligree 2y ago

On the other hand, the existence of coal power proves that releasing small amounts of radiation is fine, really. So we should be able to build a lot more nuclear power plants; it would take a lot of accidents like these to match the releases from coal.

fsh 2y ago
The explosion of Chernobyl released a few thousand PBq of activity. Coal contains a few tens to a few hundreds of Bq/kg. You would have to burn something like 50 times the world coal reserves (and make sure not to use any exhaust filters) in order to match the radiation release of Chernobyl.
- jajko 2y ago
  While I like nuclear on the paper and its theoretical env impact, this one is hard to ignore. Add costs of current projects which became ridiculous in reality. Plus as we see with various wars nuclear powerplants would be a prime target for terrorists or even state actors, they are certainly not considered as excluded from wars, in contrary. If we move to renewables, over 100 years there would be 0 reason to have a single nuclear plant running anywhere, apart from making nuclear weapons fuel. I just wish we were now where we would/will be in 50 years in terms of renewables technology maturity and its spread.
  - polotics 2y ago
    Do pray tell calculate a world's energy system looping back while running purely on renewables, with electric powered mining, transport of ores, refining, panels production... You will find that you cannot, cheap (for now) fossil fuels are subsidising solar panels and wind farms massively.
    - pfdietz 2y ago
      The mining for renewables would be a small fraction of the mining for industrial society as a whole. So, if electrification cannot be done on this, industrial society as we know it is doomed, and nuclear cannot save it. Unless you're thinking we're going to have nuclear reactors in our mining vehicles...

Kon5ole 2y ago

Once you decide to run nuclear power in a country you have centuries of unavoidable costs no matter what the next government, or next ten generations of citizens decide to do. This is a unique cost consideration for nuclear power, which IMO is rarely considered by the proponents.

pyrale 2y ago
Negative industrial byproducts creating costs for future generations is an unique challenge? Have you heard of climate change?
- _ph_ 2y ago
  Your argument would be valid if nuclear power would be the only option to prevent climate change. But there are other options: the various renewables, most importantly solar and wind. So it is not nuclear vs. climate change, but nuclear vs. solar/wind.
- Kon5ole 2y ago
  Any one power plant has no measurable effect on global climate. (All fossil power plants combined worldwide have about the same emissions as all cars; about 1/6). So, if your fathers started coal plants, you close them, stop paying for them and can forget about them. this is not at all the case if your fathers started nuclear plants, not only do you have to pay, your children have to pay, all their lives, and all your grandchildren, and so on. What bugs me is the tendency of proponents to pretend that the decision is no biggie. It is a biggie. At least understand that, then we can have a rational discussion about it! Energy storage solutions and infrastructure for generating synthesized fuels (hydrogen and others) will require investments, but those investments will be a gift to the future. We will bear the burden of building the infrastructure now, but future generations will benefit from what we have built. Nuclear is the opposite, we get the benefits and the future gets the burden.
  - pyrale 2y ago
    So basically you’re so caught up in this infighting between two carbon neutral energies that you’d rather spread disinformation about climate change and the negative effects of coal…