6 ms·
I think it's impossible to really estimate how much an energy costs, because you could argue that you need to include the cost of potential accidents or the inc
by shin_lao 13y ago
I think it's impossible to really estimate how much an energy costs, because you could argue that you need to include the cost of potential accidents or the incertity of raw materials costs or the cost of not being able to produce energy when you need it, etc.
For solar, you need sun, for wind, you need wind. The real issue to solve is being able to store electricity. Once you have that, a lot of issues disapear, because you can procude when you can, consume when you need.
In the long term I really think nuclear is optimal, after all that's what the universe chose... In a way, solar energy is fusion based. ;)
- StavrosK 13y agoYou think the universe is optimal? :p
- shin_lao 13y agoWell, for now we didn't do any better. :D
- seanmcdirmid 13y agoIf we could figure out economical nuclear fusion, we wouldn't be arguing right now. We are always 20 years from figuring it out also. Once we have fusion, producing hydrogen liquid fuel should be cake.
- welterde 13y agoOr about 80bn EUR away from figuring it out.. would be a more useful scale imho (that's at least the number that the local plasma physics institute estimated iirc), as the ETA will keep changing if you change the yearly budget.
- hetman 13y agoThe problem with fusion is that in the form accessible to us here on Earth (deuterium-tritium), it still creates radioactive waste. It is not the sort of long lived waste you would see from Uranium based nuclear fission, it is more comparable to Thorium based fission reactors. In other words we already have a pretty decent alternative. The real holy grail would be Hellium 3 fusion, but first we have to figure out how to import the fuel back to Earth from places like the surface of the Moon or from Jupiter.
- sillysaurus 13y agoInteresting. The moon has Helium 3, but the Earth doesn't?
- welterde 13y agoIt does, but only in rather small quantities. In fact it seems that most He-3 that's used is produced in Tritium decay reactions rather than extracted.
- sneak 13y ago> first we have to figure out how to import the fuel back to Earth from places like the surface of the Moon All we need is a psycho korean holding company and Sam Rockwell and we should be good. (See "Moon" if you haven't. It's amazingly excellent.)
- rfvtgb123 13y agoThere are no working reactors (not even tested designs) that harness the potential of thorium. Experimental plants have had serious problems (edit:)and low power generation from thorium (see for example THTR-300 in germany; beware of the english wikipedia page, it is incomplete). So... come up with a safe design for a thorium reactor? (Edit2:) Until then, you might as well say fusion. Anyway, none of this is a reason to keep classic LWRs going.
- dsego 13y agoWhat about the liquid fluoride thorium reactors? There's been some hype about these recently: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbyr7jZOllI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbyr7jZOllI
- rfvtgb123 13y agoThis is just molten salt reactors all over again. They have disastrous security problems. Basically the salt eats away metal parts of the reactor, the graphite moderators are flammable and large parts of the reactor become radioactive because they catch neutrons which makes repair, maintenance and deconstruction almost impossible. (edit:) I forgot about loss of fuel solubility events and the unsolved problem of tritium retention. (edit:) It's interesting how the english wikipedia pages miss all the details on the failed projects in this field.
- codeulike 13y ago> In the long term I really think nuclear is optimal, after all that's what the universe chose... In a way, solar energy is fusion based. ;) But fusion != fission