4 ms·

Nuclear is the answer to our infinite appetite for energy. For the long term, nuclear will be part of the solution. With that said, there is no such thing as a

Nuclear is the answer to our infinite appetite for energy. For the long term, nuclear will be part of the solution. With that said, there is no such thing as an energy shock right now. Instead, Europe has allies who blatantly attacked a sovereign nation. The answer to that is to condemn and sanction the instigators. What are laws for if they can selectively applied? This is a political problem.

JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
> Nuclear is the answer to our infinite appetite for energy Approximately 100% of the energy in our solar system radiates from the Sun. Long term, solar is the answer. Nuclear is a really good carrier. In the medium term, we need more energy. Preferably cheap. Ideally clean. Going all in on one mode doesn't make sense because it virtually demand the creation of bottlenecks and single points of failure.
- petre 6mo ago
  What do we do if another asteroid strikes, raises dust plumes and causes volcanic activity for years? The solution is to diversify renewable energy sources. Nuclear takes to long to plan and build. If that is fixed, then great.
  - JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
    > solution is to diversify renewable energy sources There are two economically-viable renewable sources: solar and wind. Everything else is, to put it succinctly, bullshit. We're not producing and deploying as much solar and wind as we can. But global production has limits. Going all in on just those two (together with batteries) requires massively overpaying. That, in turn, makes the economy uncompetitive. > Nuclear takes to long to plan and build. If that is fixed, then great Permitting takes forever, too. Nuclear can be done quicker and cheaper, we've seen China do that. It's a good part of the mix because we just need to add power, and ideally, with economies of scale.
    - pfdietz 6mo ago
      Geothermal is also looking promising, probably more so than nuclear.
      - stop50 6mo ago
        Especially in the eiffel region.
      - JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
        > Geothermal is also looking promising Europe should absolutely develop it. But it's no panacea. Optimistically, "around 43 GW of enhanced geothermal capacity in the European Union could be developed at costs below 100 €/MWh" [1]. That's 3% of European energy demand [2]. [1] https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/hot-stuff-geothermal-energy-in-europe/ https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/hot-stuff-geotherma... [2] https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Energy_statistics_-_an_overview#:~:text=Final%20energy%20consumption,1994%20until%20it https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php... 36.6k PJ/year ~ 1,160 GW
  - marcosdumay 6mo ago
    > What do we do if another asteroid strikes, raises dust plumes and causes volcanic activity for years? A few nuclear plants will do absolutely nothing against a nuclear winter.
    - Gud 6mo ago
      What "nuclear winter"?
      - defrost 6mo ago
        In context it seems clear they intended to short hand the possible effects of possible global dust clouds that are possibly aloft for some time with the term "nuclear winter", itself a name for a possible effect of some number of large ground level nuclear blasts.
        Gud 6mo ago
        Yes, a nuclear winter is theorized to happen when a lot(thousands) of cities are struck by nuclear weapons. It's unclear how this is related.
        defrost 6mo ago
        Cities? Surely it'd be a nuclear winter if the same number hit not-cities. eg: Castle Bravo .. not a city, but a ground level strike. > It's unclear how this is related. From a geophysics PoV meteorite strikes are not unlike ground level nuclear explosions in so far as dust plumes go. > another asteroid strikes, raises dust plumes and causes volcanic activity for years? At least that's my recollection from those old old first approximation nuclear winter papers that were largely circles and arrows on the back of envelope guesstimations. If we're to quibble, I'd be asking about the meteorite strikes causing volcanic activity (or is it the dust plumes that cause that activity?) .. cause that seems tenuous unless it's a direct strike on an unstable part of the Ring of Fire / Yellowstone Caldera. Whether it's nuclear or meteorites the theory rests not so much on number of ground events as it does on volume (and type) or particles raised up high ... the Iridium K-Pg anomaly layer is global yet postulated to have come from a single (large) strike.
  - adrianN 6mo ago
    In the case we have dust for years that significantly reduces solar output, most people die. What powers our electric grid doesn’t matter if agriculture is crippled.

JumpCrisscross 6mo ago

> Nuclear is the answer to our infinite appetite for energy Approximately 100% of the energy in our solar system radiates from the Sun. Long term, solar is the answer. Nuclear is a really good carrier. In the medium term, we need more energy. Preferably cheap. Ideally clean. Going all in on one mode doesn't make sense because it virtually demand the creation of bottlenecks and single points of failure.

petre 6mo ago
What do we do if another asteroid strikes, raises dust plumes and causes volcanic activity for years? The solution is to diversify renewable energy sources. Nuclear takes to long to plan and build. If that is fixed, then great.
- JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
  > solution is to diversify renewable energy sources There are two economically-viable renewable sources: solar and wind. Everything else is, to put it succinctly, bullshit. We're not producing and deploying as much solar and wind as we can. But global production has limits. Going all in on just those two (together with batteries) requires massively overpaying. That, in turn, makes the economy uncompetitive. > Nuclear takes to long to plan and build. If that is fixed, then great Permitting takes forever, too. Nuclear can be done quicker and cheaper, we've seen China do that. It's a good part of the mix because we just need to add power, and ideally, with economies of scale.
  - pfdietz 6mo ago
    Geothermal is also looking promising, probably more so than nuclear.
    - stop50 6mo ago
      Especially in the eiffel region.
    - JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
      > Geothermal is also looking promising Europe should absolutely develop it. But it's no panacea. Optimistically, "around 43 GW of enhanced geothermal capacity in the European Union could be developed at costs below 100 €/MWh" [1]. That's 3% of European energy demand [2]. [1] https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/hot-stuff-geothermal-energy-in-europe/ https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/hot-stuff-geotherma... [2] https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Energy_statistics_-_an_overview#:~:text=Final%20energy%20consumption,1994%20until%20it https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php... 36.6k PJ/year ~ 1,160 GW
- marcosdumay 6mo ago
  > What do we do if another asteroid strikes, raises dust plumes and causes volcanic activity for years? A few nuclear plants will do absolutely nothing against a nuclear winter.
  - Gud 6mo ago
    What "nuclear winter"?
    - defrost 6mo ago
      In context it seems clear they intended to short hand the possible effects of possible global dust clouds that are possibly aloft for some time with the term "nuclear winter", itself a name for a possible effect of some number of large ground level nuclear blasts.
      - Gud 6mo ago
        Yes, a nuclear winter is theorized to happen when a lot(thousands) of cities are struck by nuclear weapons. It's unclear how this is related.
        defrost 6mo ago
        Cities? Surely it'd be a nuclear winter if the same number hit not-cities. eg: Castle Bravo .. not a city, but a ground level strike. > It's unclear how this is related. From a geophysics PoV meteorite strikes are not unlike ground level nuclear explosions in so far as dust plumes go. > another asteroid strikes, raises dust plumes and causes volcanic activity for years? At least that's my recollection from those old old first approximation nuclear winter papers that were largely circles and arrows on the back of envelope guesstimations. If we're to quibble, I'd be asking about the meteorite strikes causing volcanic activity (or is it the dust plumes that cause that activity?) .. cause that seems tenuous unless it's a direct strike on an unstable part of the Ring of Fire / Yellowstone Caldera. Whether it's nuclear or meteorites the theory rests not so much on number of ground events as it does on volume (and type) or particles raised up high ... the Iridium K-Pg anomaly layer is global yet postulated to have come from a single (large) strike.
- adrianN 6mo ago
  In the case we have dust for years that significantly reduces solar output, most people die. What powers our electric grid doesn’t matter if agriculture is crippled.