8 ms·

I view nuclear as a prudent diversification of energy sources: What happens if some supervolcano erupts, and because of the ashes significantly less sunlight re

I view nuclear as a prudent diversification of energy sources: What happens if some supervolcano erupts, and because of the ashes significantly less sunlight reaches the surface of the earth. Presumably, there will also be less wind then.

sschueller 1y ago
Even without I think wind will become too expensive eventually to make it worth while. Especially when solar gets more efficient and cheaper. Wind has down sides like moving parts and requiring giant concrete poors. Birds strikes, noise as well as ground vibration are also issues.
- Ylpertnodi 1y ago
  >Birds strikes...are also issues. Unless you're vegetarian, or vegan, how so?
  - aziaziazi 1y ago
    There’s plenty meat eaters that care of birds for multiple reasons and perceive their diminution as an issue. One of them might be other animal (that they care less) regulation, like mosquitos and mouses. Another one is the delight to see them flying and singing around. And another one: seeds dispersions that contribute to the flora health.
- aziaziazi 1y ago
  You can add (no) recycling of huge composite balades.
  - pfdietz 1y ago
    So what? Even if every wind turbine blade were landfilled it would add only slightly to waste streams already in existence. The US produces hundreds of millions of tons of construction and demolition waste per year.
    - aziaziazi 1y ago
      That's fair. Most demolition waste can be crushed and used as stabilisation for new constructions instead of mined rocks, and that's also often cheaper. However you are right to point out the quantity which is small, for now because we didn't really scale yet.
      - pfdietz 1y ago
        It will be comparatively small even when scaled out. PV waste too. My biggest concern with wind is not the blades, it's concrete foundations and perhaps steel. Concrete inherently releases CO2 when produced (from calcining of limestone), even if the energy source is non-fossil. Nuclear also faces this issue, of course. PV doesn't typically use concrete footers these days, instead using steel anchors that go directly into the ground. There are plans to make lime from silicates, but this is not a mature technology.
  - megaman821 1y ago
    That just isn't a real problem. A single large American landfill could take 100 years worth of wind turbine blades and not even be 25% full. If we were so inclined, we could also shred them and add them to concrete for sidewalks or the like.
  - natmaka 1y ago
    Recyclable blades are gaining traction: RecyclableBlade, ZEBRA, PECAN... There even are efforts to recycle existing 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... In most advanced nations landfilling them is prohibited, and many are now burnt in cement kilns.
- bhelkey 1y ago
  > Wind has down sides like ...Birds strikes Many birds die as a result of human activity. In the US, the leading cause of these deaths is cats [1]. Cats cause four times more bird deaths than the next anthropogenic cause of death, flying into windows. Cats cause ~1000x more bird deaths than collisions with wind turbines. [1] https://www.statista.com/chart/15195/wind-turbines-are-not-killing-fields-for-birds/ https://www.statista.com/chart/15195/wind-turbines-are-not-k...
  - gcheong 1y ago
    By sheer numbers, yes, but the kinds of birds killed are different. Larger, slower reproducing birds such as eagles, condors, etc. are more at risk being killed by wind turbines because deaths in those groups have a much larger effect whereas cats kill a much larger number of birds but they tend to be smaller, faster reproducing species and as such their numbers overall aren't as much at risk.
    - bhelkey 1y ago
      Cats are one of five categories with >100x the rate of wind turbine bird deaths [1]. If your position is that all five of these factors don't impact larger birds, the onus is on you to back that claim up. [1] https://www.statista.com/chart/15195/wind-turbines-are-not-killing-fields-for-birds/ https://www.statista.com/chart/15195/wind-turbines-are-not-k...
      - gcheong 1y ago
        I’m not saying they don’t but I am saying looking at sheer numbers of deaths as a comparison is misleading because it’s the details of what kinds of deaths that make the difference. Your linked article even mentions this: “ While the relationship between wind turbines and different types of bird populations, particularly apex birds, is understudied, there is some evidence that turbines can hurt those populations.”
      - EasyMark 1y ago
        I think his point was that birds much too large for a cat to take down are taken down by wind turbines, also some birds are much more rare than others, and many large species are relatively slow to reproduce as well.
biophysboy 1y ago
I think we would have a harder time finding food and clean water in this scenario
delusional 1y ago
Even on a dead earth the AI must consume and indescribable amount of power.
- cryptonector 1y ago
  Shades of Isaac Asimov's The Last Question. Plot twist: the computer's last act at the end of The Last Question was just an LLM's hallucination.
croes 1y ago
Are we playing What-if? What if hackers/terrorist attack the power plants? What if the operating companies values profit over security? What if an earthquake or Tsunami hits nuclear power plant?
- throwaway2037 1y ago
  Am I stupid or naive to ask: > What if hackers/terrorist attack the power plants? Are most power plants in 2025 air-gapped? I assume yes.
  - croes 1y ago
    And hackers can’t beat air gaps https://www.missionsecure.com/blog/cyber-attack-india-largest-nuclear-plant-truth-air-gapping https://www.missionsecure.com/blog/cyber-attack-india-larges... The Iranian nuclear program was also air gapped. Didn’t stop Stuxnet. It’s interesting what you can do with USB drives. And more power plants means more possibilities for human errors.
frollogaston 1y ago
It's not even a what-if, it's just cheaper than solar for what you get. Especially compared to residential solar, which is also quite dangerous.
- brrwind 1y ago
  How is residential solar dangerous?
  - therealdrag0 1y ago
    Mostly people falling of roofs I think. When you have lowest bid contractors going up and down millions roofs each for a measly 10kw of power. The aggregate deaths per kw are worse for residential than other power sources.
    - frollogaston 1y ago
      That's the reason. Overall, family homes don't make for very safe or efficient power plants.
      - lesuorac 1y ago
        Very efficient for distribution though which is expensive (check your utility bill). Don't need to run power lines for hundreds of miles if you have a generator on your roof.
        p1mrx 1y ago
        > Don't need to run power lines for hundreds of miles if you have a generator on your roof. To remove the need for power lines, you also need batteries, and enough solar to make it through winter.
        deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
YokoZar 1y ago
If your worry is volcanoes, geothermal power can remove energy from them before they explode. On a sufficient scale they could even prevent them.
seatac76 1y ago
If that is your concern, then the thing to worry about is dramatic loss in food production before energy becomes an issue.
- raron 1y ago
  Plats survive some time (days) without light. If there is not enough backup power source (peaker gas plats, not nuclear though) the grid could quickly collapse causing a continent-wide blackout from what it would be really hard and it would take a long time to bring the grid up. Cities would be uninhabitable within a few days (no water, not sewage processing, no heating).
  - ehnto 1y ago
    Not to be too simple about it, but this does happen every night. We already require (and achieve) sufficient grid diversification, without batteries and all the cool stuff coming in future. I am not against nuclear, but I do believe we would be fine without it too.
- looofooo0 1y ago
  we can make food from oil, gas and other hydrocarbons.

sschueller 1y ago

Even without I think wind will become too expensive eventually to make it worth while. Especially when solar gets more efficient and cheaper. Wind has down sides like moving parts and requiring giant concrete poors. Birds strikes, noise as well as ground vibration are also issues.

Ylpertnodi 1y ago
>Birds strikes...are also issues. Unless you're vegetarian, or vegan, how so?
- aziaziazi 1y ago
  There’s plenty meat eaters that care of birds for multiple reasons and perceive their diminution as an issue. One of them might be other animal (that they care less) regulation, like mosquitos and mouses. Another one is the delight to see them flying and singing around. And another one: seeds dispersions that contribute to the flora health.
aziaziazi 1y ago
You can add (no) recycling of huge composite balades.
- pfdietz 1y ago
  So what? Even if every wind turbine blade were landfilled it would add only slightly to waste streams already in existence. The US produces hundreds of millions of tons of construction and demolition waste per year.
  - aziaziazi 1y ago
    That's fair. Most demolition waste can be crushed and used as stabilisation for new constructions instead of mined rocks, and that's also often cheaper. However you are right to point out the quantity which is small, for now because we didn't really scale yet.
    - pfdietz 1y ago
      It will be comparatively small even when scaled out. PV waste too. My biggest concern with wind is not the blades, it's concrete foundations and perhaps steel. Concrete inherently releases CO2 when produced (from calcining of limestone), even if the energy source is non-fossil. Nuclear also faces this issue, of course. PV doesn't typically use concrete footers these days, instead using steel anchors that go directly into the ground. There are plans to make lime from silicates, but this is not a mature technology.
- megaman821 1y ago
  That just isn't a real problem. A single large American landfill could take 100 years worth of wind turbine blades and not even be 25% full. If we were so inclined, we could also shred them and add them to concrete for sidewalks or the like.
- natmaka 1y ago
  Recyclable blades are gaining traction: RecyclableBlade, ZEBRA, PECAN... There even are efforts to recycle existing 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... In most advanced nations landfilling them is prohibited, and many are now burnt in cement kilns.
bhelkey 1y ago
> Wind has down sides like ...Birds strikes Many birds die as a result of human activity. In the US, the leading cause of these deaths is cats [1]. Cats cause four times more bird deaths than the next anthropogenic cause of death, flying into windows. Cats cause ~1000x more bird deaths than collisions with wind turbines. [1] https://www.statista.com/chart/15195/wind-turbines-are-not-killing-fields-for-birds/ https://www.statista.com/chart/15195/wind-turbines-are-not-k...
- gcheong 1y ago
  By sheer numbers, yes, but the kinds of birds killed are different. Larger, slower reproducing birds such as eagles, condors, etc. are more at risk being killed by wind turbines because deaths in those groups have a much larger effect whereas cats kill a much larger number of birds but they tend to be smaller, faster reproducing species and as such their numbers overall aren't as much at risk.
  - bhelkey 1y ago
    Cats are one of five categories with >100x the rate of wind turbine bird deaths [1]. If your position is that all five of these factors don't impact larger birds, the onus is on you to back that claim up. [1] https://www.statista.com/chart/15195/wind-turbines-are-not-killing-fields-for-birds/ https://www.statista.com/chart/15195/wind-turbines-are-not-k...
    - gcheong 1y ago
      I’m not saying they don’t but I am saying looking at sheer numbers of deaths as a comparison is misleading because it’s the details of what kinds of deaths that make the difference. Your linked article even mentions this: “ While the relationship between wind turbines and different types of bird populations, particularly apex birds, is understudied, there is some evidence that turbines can hurt those populations.”
    - EasyMark 1y ago
      I think his point was that birds much too large for a cat to take down are taken down by wind turbines, also some birds are much more rare than others, and many large species are relatively slow to reproduce as well.

biophysboy 1y ago

I think we would have a harder time finding food and clean water in this scenario

delusional 1y ago

Even on a dead earth the AI must consume and indescribable amount of power.

cryptonector 1y ago
Shades of Isaac Asimov's The Last Question. Plot twist: the computer's last act at the end of The Last Question was just an LLM's hallucination.

croes 1y ago

Are we playing What-if? What if hackers/terrorist attack the power plants? What if the operating companies values profit over security? What if an earthquake or Tsunami hits nuclear power plant?

throwaway2037 1y ago
Am I stupid or naive to ask: > What if hackers/terrorist attack the power plants? Are most power plants in 2025 air-gapped? I assume yes.
- croes 1y ago
  And hackers can’t beat air gaps https://www.missionsecure.com/blog/cyber-attack-india-largest-nuclear-plant-truth-air-gapping https://www.missionsecure.com/blog/cyber-attack-india-larges... The Iranian nuclear program was also air gapped. Didn’t stop Stuxnet. It’s interesting what you can do with USB drives. And more power plants means more possibilities for human errors.

frollogaston 1y ago

It's not even a what-if, it's just cheaper than solar for what you get. Especially compared to residential solar, which is also quite dangerous.

brrwind 1y ago
How is residential solar dangerous?
- therealdrag0 1y ago
  Mostly people falling of roofs I think. When you have lowest bid contractors going up and down millions roofs each for a measly 10kw of power. The aggregate deaths per kw are worse for residential than other power sources.
  - frollogaston 1y ago
    That's the reason. Overall, family homes don't make for very safe or efficient power plants.
    - lesuorac 1y ago
      Very efficient for distribution though which is expensive (check your utility bill). Don't need to run power lines for hundreds of miles if you have a generator on your roof.
      - p1mrx 1y ago
        > Don't need to run power lines for hundreds of miles if you have a generator on your roof. To remove the need for power lines, you also need batteries, and enough solar to make it through winter.
        deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]

YokoZar 1y ago

If your worry is volcanoes, geothermal power can remove energy from them before they explode. On a sufficient scale they could even prevent them.

seatac76 1y ago

If that is your concern, then the thing to worry about is dramatic loss in food production before energy becomes an issue.

raron 1y ago
Plats survive some time (days) without light. If there is not enough backup power source (peaker gas plats, not nuclear though) the grid could quickly collapse causing a continent-wide blackout from what it would be really hard and it would take a long time to bring the grid up. Cities would be uninhabitable within a few days (no water, not sewage processing, no heating).
- ehnto 1y ago
  Not to be too simple about it, but this does happen every night. We already require (and achieve) sufficient grid diversification, without batteries and all the cool stuff coming in future. I am not against nuclear, but I do believe we would be fine without it too.
looofooo0 1y ago
we can make food from oil, gas and other hydrocarbons.