4 ms·
We're not using much in the way of renewable energy for good reasons. Simply: low and inconsistent output. Solar: The absolute maximum upper limit is 1.3kW/m^2
by ctdonath 13y ago
We're not using much in the way of renewable energy for good reasons. Simply: low and inconsistent output.
Solar: The absolute maximum upper limit is 1.3kW/m^2, the total solar energy hitting the Earth's disc. Realistically, you'll max out around 130W/m^2 under ideal conditions, dealing with atmospheric absorption, night, clouds, conversion efficiency, breakage, etc. Realistic norm is somewhere around even a tenth of that. Output storage & buffering is problematic, batteries using environmentally unfriendly materials requiring manufacture & replacement over a less-than-you-want lifespan. By the time an installation has become cost-effective, it's done and you'll have to re-install diminishing-return components. On a large enough scale to compete with other energy sources, you're performing "solar strip-mining" on the local environment.
Wind: Big turbines are costly, last about 20 years, annoy neighbors (I almost had a wind farm dropped on my town), and by the time those huge expensive generators wear out or burn up (!) nobody will have a financial interest in replacing/dismantling them. Likewise, inconsistent power output is a problem few seriously address. Converting large amounts of atmospheric movement to heat will itself result in "manmade global warming" type issues.
Old-form nuclear sucks. Between lousy ancient designs and sheer paranoia over "weapons-grade" phases, coupled with vast construction handling high-pressure extreme-danger contents, yeah there's a disaster waiting to happen - and as noted it just takes one to make the savings moot.
New-form nuclear has real potential. Small sealed units incapable of self-destructing, highly resistant to deliberate damage, and easy to transport make it entirely possible for a community to purchase one turnkey reactor and run from that for decades.
Oil/coal will remain a major contender precisely because the energy has already been gathered into convenient pumpable-haulable form, is shelf-stable over usage fluctuations, and has little discernible waste.
Renewables are just not viable, at least not yet. Despite huge piles of money thrown at it (by the current US administration in particular), nothing of marketable substance has emerged. If it were viable, it would be in widespread production. I'm looking to run my HVAC off solar if you disagree.
The bashing of nuclear is mostly limited to old-school hot-water active-cooling designs. Yes, they suck. Get over it and move on to modern designs held back mostly by regulatory concerns which apply those fears to inapplicable reactors without further consideration.
- api 13y agoTrue-- for now. The question is: is it better to spend billions researching new generations of nuclear reactors or to spend billions working on energy storage? The former will lead to a switch from older, less concentrated fossil fuels to a newer, more energy-dense fossil fuel. But it's not without well-known problems. The latter will result in a permanent, eternal solution to the energy problem. There are limits to how much solar and wind is available, but those are orders of magnitude beyond our civilization's current energy requirements. Other limits to growth -- arable land, decreasing fertility with increasing wealth -- will likely prevent us from ever even approaching those limits. Solve the energy storage problem and the industrial revolution becomes as permanent as the agricultural revolution. Nuclear power won't do that. So energy storage technology is IMHO a more prudent, higher dividend investment than better nuclear reactors.
- ctdonath 13y agoIn the meantime, "the latter" has well-known problems which are not being solved and which are being flat-out ignored by advocates. Those problems include the rarely-discussed (see, even you just shot right past them) "solar strip-mining" and atmospheric disruption issues. Show me any form of serious progress on the energy storage problem, please. Tesla's $40,000 car battery is about the best there is, and that's not encouraging.
- digikata 13y agoThere are many problems not solved with new and old nuclear systems too. Case in point is the Southern California Edison plant which failed trying to upgrade an existing, known system on their nuclear plant. I haven't really heard of solar based "atmospheric disruption" issue. On the other hand, I have wondered what the effect of releasing gigawatts (terawatts?) of heat (and electricity that will become heat) derived from nuclear power plants year after year. Solar is a closed system energy source; we're going to receive that energy one way or another whereas nuclear is adding energy to the system derived by converting matter - energy that isn't a normal input.
- 13y ago