4 ms·

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 ind

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
    A typical game for making EROEI look bad is to expand system boundaries. That is, you say "we're paying these workers, and they're consuming products and services that use energy, so ascribe that energy use to this effort". Cast the net widely enough and all energy use in society can be included. But if you do that, EROEI converges to 1, since all energy that is produced is also consumed. And this is perfectly ok. Elsewhere, with more reasonable boundaries, one finds EROEI is much higher, and has been found to be better than for fossil fuels. An EROEI of about 8 for PV in Switzerland, for example (and Switzerland is not the sunniest place on Earth; the EROEI would be even higher at those locations; it also becomes higher as renewable technology advances, for example with longer lifespans and thinner PV cells.) That EROEI can't be bad should be obvious. Energy is only a small fraction of the cost of making renewable equipment. If EROEI were bad then renewables could not be as cheap as they are. That they are being sold so cheaply debunks the EROEI arguments directly.
    - polotics 2y ago
      No! China cornered the solar panel market through the use of megawatts of coal-produced electricity! Transportation for all the ores etc is not gaming the metrics.
      - pfdietz 2y ago
        It's certainly the case that China has been burning a lot of coal. But that doesn't mean China's PV depends on the existence of coal power to produce it. The objection here seems to be that a renewable economy is impossible because it hasn't sprung into existence fully formed. And isn't coal responsible for all that concrete nuclear plants there are built with? The vision of a nuclear-powered world implicitly assumes concrete will produced in some other way; this is a harder task that replacing coal electricity with renewable electricity.
        polotics 2y ago
        Where do you see a vision a nuclear powered world? No-one touts that. Look, if you have numbers, actual data, please provide it. So far all you provided pfdietz is sneer and words.
pfdietz 2y ago
Well, my feeling it the exact mirror of that. It is you who I view as hopelessly wrong, someone who has cultish devotion to a failing technology. What would a disinterested observer make of this? They'd look for objective evidence to determine which of us is closer to reality. For example, they might look at what the world is doing right now. What is being installed, renewables or nuclear? Presumably those who are spending money are trying to get the most bang for the buck. If we look at that, renewables are soundly trouncing nuclear. Even in China, that country that is held up as the last best hope by nuclear advocates. New installs (which reflect the current conditions better than total installed capacity, which is a lagging indicator) are massively in favor of renewables there and elsewhere. The nuclear advocate who explains away nuclear's troubles as due to the selective omnipotence of greens (selective, since they don't seem to be doing nearly as well on other issues) must really stretch their conspiracy theorizing to explain such a widespread result. I will also note that you didn't explain how nuclear can power mining in a way that renewables can't.
- polotics 2y ago
  The quantity of mining required for nuclear vs. solar and wind is massively different.
  - pfdietz 2y ago
    Both are small compared to the mining needed for society as a whole. So why the hand wringing? You are desperately straining to make a mountain out of a foothill.
    - polotics 2y ago
      Well no, I am simply certain, from study, that the 100% renewables future being touted is a pipe dream at anything approaching mid 20th century energy consumption levels. Show me one model that does work with any technology, please, any source anywhere I promise I will review. Mining to get renewables to anything like the GWHours needed is very significant, look at the graphs in the data I provided Instead of any kind of data that would show me how I am wrong, all the data I am getting is downvotes and wordage.

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
  A typical game for making EROEI look bad is to expand system boundaries. That is, you say "we're paying these workers, and they're consuming products and services that use energy, so ascribe that energy use to this effort". Cast the net widely enough and all energy use in society can be included. But if you do that, EROEI converges to 1, since all energy that is produced is also consumed. And this is perfectly ok. Elsewhere, with more reasonable boundaries, one finds EROEI is much higher, and has been found to be better than for fossil fuels. An EROEI of about 8 for PV in Switzerland, for example (and Switzerland is not the sunniest place on Earth; the EROEI would be even higher at those locations; it also becomes higher as renewable technology advances, for example with longer lifespans and thinner PV cells.) That EROEI can't be bad should be obvious. Energy is only a small fraction of the cost of making renewable equipment. If EROEI were bad then renewables could not be as cheap as they are. That they are being sold so cheaply debunks the EROEI arguments directly.
  - polotics 2y ago
    No! China cornered the solar panel market through the use of megawatts of coal-produced electricity! Transportation for all the ores etc is not gaming the metrics.
    - pfdietz 2y ago
      It's certainly the case that China has been burning a lot of coal. But that doesn't mean China's PV depends on the existence of coal power to produce it. The objection here seems to be that a renewable economy is impossible because it hasn't sprung into existence fully formed. And isn't coal responsible for all that concrete nuclear plants there are built with? The vision of a nuclear-powered world implicitly assumes concrete will produced in some other way; this is a harder task that replacing coal electricity with renewable electricity.
      - polotics 2y ago
        Where do you see a vision a nuclear powered world? No-one touts that. Look, if you have numbers, actual data, please provide it. So far all you provided pfdietz is sneer and words.

pfdietz 2y ago

Well, my feeling it the exact mirror of that. It is you who I view as hopelessly wrong, someone who has cultish devotion to a failing technology. What would a disinterested observer make of this? They'd look for objective evidence to determine which of us is closer to reality. For example, they might look at what the world is doing right now. What is being installed, renewables or nuclear? Presumably those who are spending money are trying to get the most bang for the buck. If we look at that, renewables are soundly trouncing nuclear. Even in China, that country that is held up as the last best hope by nuclear advocates. New installs (which reflect the current conditions better than total installed capacity, which is a lagging indicator) are massively in favor of renewables there and elsewhere. The nuclear advocate who explains away nuclear's troubles as due to the selective omnipotence of greens (selective, since they don't seem to be doing nearly as well on other issues) must really stretch their conspiracy theorizing to explain such a widespread result. I will also note that you didn't explain how nuclear can power mining in a way that renewables can't.

polotics 2y ago
The quantity of mining required for nuclear vs. solar and wind is massively different.
- pfdietz 2y ago
  Both are small compared to the mining needed for society as a whole. So why the hand wringing? You are desperately straining to make a mountain out of a foothill.
  - polotics 2y ago
    Well no, I am simply certain, from study, that the 100% renewables future being touted is a pipe dream at anything approaching mid 20th century energy consumption levels. Show me one model that does work with any technology, please, any source anywhere I promise I will review. Mining to get renewables to anything like the GWHours needed is very significant, look at the graphs in the data I provided Instead of any kind of data that would show me how I am wrong, all the data I am getting is downvotes and wordage.