4 ms·

> Nuclear (hopefully fusion at some point) is the only plausible way to meet energy needs in the future (that we currently know of). This is simply false. At

> Nuclear (hopefully fusion at some point) is the only plausible way to meet energy needs in the future (that we currently know of). This is simply false. At this point, its falsity has been sufficiently well demonstrated and communicated that you should have known it was false. If you are not deliberately lying, it's only because you steered yourself away from learning the truth.

7e 2y ago
Solar and wind aren’t reliable energy sources. They’re not dispatchable 24x7 and fluctuate along various timescales. Storing renewable energy for 24 hours doubles the cost. Storing it seasonally increases the cost 150x. Show me any place, anywhere, which is using renewable for baseline energy production 24x7. At this point, that’s sufficiently well known that you should have known it. If you’re not deliberately lying, it’s only because you steered yourself away from learning the truth.
- doublerabbit 2y ago
  Life spans of reactors can cause instability. Nuclear requires unstable mines for unstable materials which are unstably finite. Controlled by unstable governments and where by a nuclear explosion causes a very unstable aftermath. I see nothing stable about nuclear. Unless, you mean renewable being "unstable" in the sense of no wind, no sun equates to no power. Then yes, but only until the fuel is spent. However, renewables are stable when resources are available, stable in providing consistent clean fuel and stable in cost on upkeep than say one of a nuclear reactor. Which is why you combine all three. > Show me any place, anywhere, which is using renewable for baseline energy production 24x7. El Hierro, the smallest of the Canary Islands, holds a unique distinction as the only island to operate solely on wind and waterpower for 28 consecutive days. The facility ingeniously combines wind generation with pumped storage hydroelectric generation. Now that's cool. https://www.renewableinstitute.org/el-hierro-a-renewable-energy-haven-in-the-canary-islands/ https://www.renewableinstitute.org/el-hierro-a-renewable-ene...
- pfdietz 1y ago
  I do know it. And I know that the intermittency can be dealt with at finite and tolerable cost, and the resulting solutions are likely to be cheaper than those using nuclear power. Those seemingly stuck on advocating nuclear power do not seem to understand the advances made both in storage technology and in system design to deal with intermittency.
rockemsockem 2y ago
I think you probably just disagree with OP about the levels of our energy needs in the future. If we just sustain human life and pleasure then yeah renewables are probably fine. If we want to pursue highly energy intensive applications and then further if we want to pursue those applications with mobility then we need nuclear.
- pfdietz 2y ago
  We can pursue high energy intensive activities with renewables, higher than if we use fusion. On Earth, solar allows high energy use before we run into limits from direct thermal pollution, since it uses energy already hitting the planet rather than introducing new energy. In space, the energy available from sunlight vastly exceeds any available from fusion, and the feasibility difference tilts even more toward solar. For mobility in space, beamed power will be best, and solar works with that just fine, even out to interstellar distances.
  - rockemsockem 1y ago
    I think there are a lot of in-depth trades that can be done to show specifically when nuclear is appropriate vs solar, and I'm sure solar will win a lot of those, but I'm just going to reach for the easy ones here. Radio telescope on the dark side of the moon, using solar would require long transmission lines. Autonomous vehicles on Mars (already use nuclear energy via RTGs). Any deep space mission where building a nuclear reactor and launching it is lower effort than complex energy beaming.
    - pfdietz 1y ago
      I don't think a radio telescope uses much power at all. And beamed power should work fine on the night side of the moon, beaming power via laser from collectors in space. The apertures on either end would just be a few meters. I have to question the moon as a location for such telescopes vs. positioning them in space. We've built (small) space radio telescopes already, but none have been placed on the moon.

7e 2y ago

Solar and wind aren’t reliable energy sources. They’re not dispatchable 24x7 and fluctuate along various timescales. Storing renewable energy for 24 hours doubles the cost. Storing it seasonally increases the cost 150x. Show me any place, anywhere, which is using renewable for baseline energy production 24x7. At this point, that’s sufficiently well known that you should have known it. If you’re not deliberately lying, it’s only because you steered yourself away from learning the truth.

doublerabbit 2y ago
Life spans of reactors can cause instability. Nuclear requires unstable mines for unstable materials which are unstably finite. Controlled by unstable governments and where by a nuclear explosion causes a very unstable aftermath. I see nothing stable about nuclear. Unless, you mean renewable being "unstable" in the sense of no wind, no sun equates to no power. Then yes, but only until the fuel is spent. However, renewables are stable when resources are available, stable in providing consistent clean fuel and stable in cost on upkeep than say one of a nuclear reactor. Which is why you combine all three. > Show me any place, anywhere, which is using renewable for baseline energy production 24x7. El Hierro, the smallest of the Canary Islands, holds a unique distinction as the only island to operate solely on wind and waterpower for 28 consecutive days. The facility ingeniously combines wind generation with pumped storage hydroelectric generation. Now that's cool. https://www.renewableinstitute.org/el-hierro-a-renewable-energy-haven-in-the-canary-islands/ https://www.renewableinstitute.org/el-hierro-a-renewable-ene...
pfdietz 1y ago
I do know it. And I know that the intermittency can be dealt with at finite and tolerable cost, and the resulting solutions are likely to be cheaper than those using nuclear power. Those seemingly stuck on advocating nuclear power do not seem to understand the advances made both in storage technology and in system design to deal with intermittency.

rockemsockem 2y ago

I think you probably just disagree with OP about the levels of our energy needs in the future. If we just sustain human life and pleasure then yeah renewables are probably fine. If we want to pursue highly energy intensive applications and then further if we want to pursue those applications with mobility then we need nuclear.

pfdietz 2y ago
We can pursue high energy intensive activities with renewables, higher than if we use fusion. On Earth, solar allows high energy use before we run into limits from direct thermal pollution, since it uses energy already hitting the planet rather than introducing new energy. In space, the energy available from sunlight vastly exceeds any available from fusion, and the feasibility difference tilts even more toward solar. For mobility in space, beamed power will be best, and solar works with that just fine, even out to interstellar distances.
- rockemsockem 1y ago
  I think there are a lot of in-depth trades that can be done to show specifically when nuclear is appropriate vs solar, and I'm sure solar will win a lot of those, but I'm just going to reach for the easy ones here. Radio telescope on the dark side of the moon, using solar would require long transmission lines. Autonomous vehicles on Mars (already use nuclear energy via RTGs). Any deep space mission where building a nuclear reactor and launching it is lower effort than complex energy beaming.
  - pfdietz 1y ago
    I don't think a radio telescope uses much power at all. And beamed power should work fine on the night side of the moon, beaming power via laser from collectors in space. The apertures on either end would just be a few meters. I have to question the moon as a location for such telescopes vs. positioning them in space. We've built (small) space radio telescopes already, but none have been placed on the moon.