4 ms·

Do pray tell calculate a world's energy system looping back while running purely on renewables, with electric powered mining, transport of ores, refining, panel

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...
- vlovich123 2y ago
  On site mini reactors with directly wired machinery isn’t entirely inconceivable but would require a massive restructuring of industrial layouts and processes.
  - pfdietz 2y ago
    SMRs are being touted now, but (1) they aren't that small, and (2) they have to be grouped together or else fixed labor costs become unacceptable per unit of power output. The result is a collection whose power output isn't too different from conventional large reactors.
    - vlovich123 2y ago
      I agree it’s unlikely but by the same token renewables don’t really solve this problem any better - at the end of the day you need batteries for both.
      - pfdietz 2y ago
        Renewables scale down much better than nuclear does, particularly PV. For that matter, so do batteries.
- natmaka 2y ago
  Moreover many materials used in 'renewables' equipment (wind turbines...) are eternally (at human scale) recyclable. This reduces the need for mining. Uranium has to be mined.
- polotics 2y ago
  It really makes me so sad to see that some people can be so confidently so wrong. It really does appear that believing in renewables as a way to perpetuate industrial society at scale has become part of some people's identity, and regardless of any actual study on the subject, this belief appears to be a necessity to be part of non-deplorable human society. Nuclear reactors are a safe way to electrify as much as can be and reduce the body blows societies are going to take in the coming decades. Some industry is not doomed, and social stability can be maintained, at some cost, if and only if we use all technologies at our disposal for what they are, and calculate the risks and rewards right. Facts are sadly unmoved by any faith, and the real path forward as painful as it may be, is only open to those that accept that they can always be wrong, and will always have to learn more. Please pfdietz cite your sources and please prove me wrong.
  - acdha 2y ago
    I note that your polemic is long on faith in nuclear but short on the same sources you’re demanding. Perhaps you could model the standard you expect from other people by providing sources and some analysis of the very sweeping assertions you’re making.
    - polotics 2y ago
      Slides of the 20 hours lectures at Ecoles des Mines Paris https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1fqoACrCFtlXKonP266DkFUcmMVj22yj_ https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1fqoACrCFtlXKonP266Dk... The lectures: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgy0rW0oaFI&list=PLMDQXkItOZ4LPwWJkVQf_PWnYHfC5xGFO https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgy0rW0oaFI&list=PLMDQXkItOZ... The (already provided in a previous comment) EROEI study: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211467X19300926 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211467X1... The one specific slide about the low EROEI of solar panel is in: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BJvoAm__WVtumohStkF4KwT66cSz2Ojs/view https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BJvoAm__WVtumohStkF4KwT66cS... The 2.7 value is from 2019, as calculated for Spain, this one slide is in english. Panels have not made a x10 EROEI explosion in the past 5 years, a lot of the energy costs in that calculation are independent of panel technology improvements.

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...

vlovich123 2y ago
On site mini reactors with directly wired machinery isn’t entirely inconceivable but would require a massive restructuring of industrial layouts and processes.
- pfdietz 2y ago
  SMRs are being touted now, but (1) they aren't that small, and (2) they have to be grouped together or else fixed labor costs become unacceptable per unit of power output. The result is a collection whose power output isn't too different from conventional large reactors.
  - vlovich123 2y ago
    I agree it’s unlikely but by the same token renewables don’t really solve this problem any better - at the end of the day you need batteries for both.
    - pfdietz 2y ago
      Renewables scale down much better than nuclear does, particularly PV. For that matter, so do batteries.
natmaka 2y ago
Moreover many materials used in 'renewables' equipment (wind turbines...) are eternally (at human scale) recyclable. This reduces the need for mining. Uranium has to be mined.
polotics 2y ago
It really makes me so sad to see that some people can be so confidently so wrong. It really does appear that believing in renewables as a way to perpetuate industrial society at scale has become part of some people's identity, and regardless of any actual study on the subject, this belief appears to be a necessity to be part of non-deplorable human society. Nuclear reactors are a safe way to electrify as much as can be and reduce the body blows societies are going to take in the coming decades. Some industry is not doomed, and social stability can be maintained, at some cost, if and only if we use all technologies at our disposal for what they are, and calculate the risks and rewards right. Facts are sadly unmoved by any faith, and the real path forward as painful as it may be, is only open to those that accept that they can always be wrong, and will always have to learn more. Please pfdietz cite your sources and please prove me wrong.
- acdha 2y ago
  I note that your polemic is long on faith in nuclear but short on the same sources you’re demanding. Perhaps you could model the standard you expect from other people by providing sources and some analysis of the very sweeping assertions you’re making.
  - polotics 2y ago
    Slides of the 20 hours lectures at Ecoles des Mines Paris https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1fqoACrCFtlXKonP266DkFUcmMVj22yj_ https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1fqoACrCFtlXKonP266Dk... The lectures: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgy0rW0oaFI&list=PLMDQXkItOZ4LPwWJkVQf_PWnYHfC5xGFO https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgy0rW0oaFI&list=PLMDQXkItOZ... The (already provided in a previous comment) EROEI study: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211467X19300926 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211467X1... The one specific slide about the low EROEI of solar panel is in: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BJvoAm__WVtumohStkF4KwT66cSz2Ojs/view https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BJvoAm__WVtumohStkF4KwT66cS... The 2.7 value is from 2019, as calculated for Spain, this one slide is in english. Panels have not made a x10 EROEI explosion in the past 5 years, a lot of the energy costs in that calculation are independent of panel technology improvements.