8 ms·

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

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
polotics 2y ago
1) it's not the money, it's the EROEI 2) at scale, panels recycling does become a very real issue 3) It's not the abundance, it's the mine-able ore at high enough concentration that matters 4) solar panels, read the docs please 5) again, it's the EROEI, maybe panels and wind scrap a 3, early oil was in the hundreds, nuclear is at around 50 After having gotten 0/5 in terms of correctness on actual facts, maybe tone down the sneer?
- pfdietz 2y ago
  EROEI of renewables is fine, some well-debunked garbage studies not withstanding. No, at scale recycling doesn't become a "real issue" in the sense of being a showstopper. It would be nice if it could save some money (recover aluminum frames, say) but it's only a "nice to have". "High enough concentration" is dependent on technology. Like other mineral resources, one can expect lithium extraction technology to keep ahead of demand. The doom and gloomers on this sort of thing are never right. Stationary storage doesn't even require lithium; there's a large variety of storage technologies that could be used instead (including some like pumped thermal that use nothing more than cheap materials like common steel.) > solar panels, read the docs please Empty nonsense. Solar panels are not toxic. Please stop making things up. > again, it's the EROEI, maybe panels and wind scrap a 3 Completely wrong.
  - polotics 2y ago
    you wrote: "EROEI of renewables is fine" I am sorry, but "fine" is a text string, not a number. About your "Completely wrong." I hope you take the time to consider sources, for example: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211467X19300926 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211467X1... As you wrote about "well debunked" studies then please please^3 debunk this one. Thank You
chickenbig 2y ago
> 1) System cost > But if this is an argument against renewables, it's an even bigger argument against nuclear. Because nuclear is much more expensive than renewables. I agree that the nuclear power stations are more expensive per kW of generation capacity. But that does not mean that the overall system must be more expensive (fallacy of composition?). It would depend on the quality of the intermittent resources, their location, demand profiles, cost to build, cost of transmission and storage and so on.
Moldoteck 2y ago
nuclear is not much more expensive, it's cheaper. It's just harder to scale If the waste is your concern - nuclear is better. And no, you can't just bury renewable waste, it too contains forever toxic materials that can be dispersed in soil and water. Amount of mined stuff- nuclear is better, amount of land used- nuclear is better No matter how you turn it, renewables were and will be more expensive for germany https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544222018035 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03605... https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/germany-rejigs-spread-costs-adding-more-renewable-power-energy-grid-2024-08-30/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/germany-rejigs-sprea...
- natmaka 2y ago
  > nuclear is not much more expensive, it's cheaper Production costs: renewables are way cheaper than nuclear ( https://www.lazard.com/media/xemfey0k/lazards-lcoeplus-june-2024-_vf.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/xemfey0k/lazards-lcoeplus-june-... ) and this is not a new trend: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#/media/File:20201019_Levelized_Cost_of_Energy_(LCOE,_Lazard)_-_renewable_energy.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#...
  - Moldoteck 2y ago
    it kinda depends: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544222018035 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03605... https://liftoff.energy.gov/advanced-nuclear/ https://liftoff.energy.gov/advanced-nuclear/ Edit: for lazard study I kinda fail to assume why they assume 4h storage? I mean, looking at California's grid, they need about 10-14 hours of storage of about 10GW each. And at minimum triple their solar. And that's for ideal 365 sunny days case. But they get about 100 cloudy days. Some of it could be covered with wind but it'll still be a lot. What you'll do in case both solar&wind will be low? Needless to say that this overcapacity will need to be subsidized heavily because excess solar capacity will be unused a lot of the time when most of day consumption will be covered, storage too - if it'll be used less and less, youll need subsidies for companies to build more of the stuff to get back their investment

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

polotics 2y ago

1) it's not the money, it's the EROEI 2) at scale, panels recycling does become a very real issue 3) It's not the abundance, it's the mine-able ore at high enough concentration that matters 4) solar panels, read the docs please 5) again, it's the EROEI, maybe panels and wind scrap a 3, early oil was in the hundreds, nuclear is at around 50 After having gotten 0/5 in terms of correctness on actual facts, maybe tone down the sneer?

pfdietz 2y ago
EROEI of renewables is fine, some well-debunked garbage studies not withstanding. No, at scale recycling doesn't become a "real issue" in the sense of being a showstopper. It would be nice if it could save some money (recover aluminum frames, say) but it's only a "nice to have". "High enough concentration" is dependent on technology. Like other mineral resources, one can expect lithium extraction technology to keep ahead of demand. The doom and gloomers on this sort of thing are never right. Stationary storage doesn't even require lithium; there's a large variety of storage technologies that could be used instead (including some like pumped thermal that use nothing more than cheap materials like common steel.) > solar panels, read the docs please Empty nonsense. Solar panels are not toxic. Please stop making things up. > again, it's the EROEI, maybe panels and wind scrap a 3 Completely wrong.
- polotics 2y ago
  you wrote: "EROEI of renewables is fine" I am sorry, but "fine" is a text string, not a number. About your "Completely wrong." I hope you take the time to consider sources, for example: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211467X19300926 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211467X1... As you wrote about "well debunked" studies then please please^3 debunk this one. Thank You

chickenbig 2y ago

> 1) System cost > But if this is an argument against renewables, it's an even bigger argument against nuclear. Because nuclear is much more expensive than renewables. I agree that the nuclear power stations are more expensive per kW of generation capacity. But that does not mean that the overall system must be more expensive (fallacy of composition?). It would depend on the quality of the intermittent resources, their location, demand profiles, cost to build, cost of transmission and storage and so on.

Moldoteck 2y ago

nuclear is not much more expensive, it's cheaper. It's just harder to scale If the waste is your concern - nuclear is better. And no, you can't just bury renewable waste, it too contains forever toxic materials that can be dispersed in soil and water. Amount of mined stuff- nuclear is better, amount of land used- nuclear is better No matter how you turn it, renewables were and will be more expensive for germany https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544222018035 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03605... https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/germany-rejigs-spread-costs-adding-more-renewable-power-energy-grid-2024-08-30/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/germany-rejigs-sprea...

natmaka 2y ago
> nuclear is not much more expensive, it's cheaper Production costs: renewables are way cheaper than nuclear ( https://www.lazard.com/media/xemfey0k/lazards-lcoeplus-june-2024-_vf.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/xemfey0k/lazards-lcoeplus-june-... ) and this is not a new trend: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#/media/File:20201019_Levelized_Cost_of_Energy_(LCOE,_Lazard)_-_renewable_energy.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#...
- Moldoteck 2y ago
  it kinda depends: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544222018035 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03605... https://liftoff.energy.gov/advanced-nuclear/ https://liftoff.energy.gov/advanced-nuclear/ Edit: for lazard study I kinda fail to assume why they assume 4h storage? I mean, looking at California's grid, they need about 10-14 hours of storage of about 10GW each. And at minimum triple their solar. And that's for ideal 365 sunny days case. But they get about 100 cloudy days. Some of it could be covered with wind but it'll still be a lot. What you'll do in case both solar&wind will be low? Needless to say that this overcapacity will need to be subsidized heavily because excess solar capacity will be unused a lot of the time when most of day consumption will be covered, storage too - if it'll be used less and less, youll need subsidies for companies to build more of the stuff to get back their investment