sir_bearington

8 ms·

31.
by sir_bearington 6y ago
The paradox of tolerance is simply factually incorrect when it comes to speech. The existence of intolerant speech doesn't exclude anyone. People who are offended don't have to listen. The paradox of tolerance only exists when peo
32.
by sir_bearington 6y ago
This kind of reaction is what phrases like "it's okay to be white" and "all lives matter" are meant to elicit. It's exactly what trolls want you to do. The other 90% of the population is appalled. Is it not o
33.
by sir_bearington 6y ago
"greater costs over time" wasn't what you claimed. What you wrote was: > nuclear very clearly gets more expensive the more if it we build, not less expensive. We've been building less nuclear not more. So if what yo
34.
by sir_bearington 6y ago
The book mostly focuses on raw generation figures. I see little to no writing on how to handle the intermittency of renewable sources. Also, the 1,000 year figure for fissile fuel does not consider reprocessing which reclaims over 80% of fu
35.
by sir_bearington 6y ago
> You seem to be backing up my point with your claims. Nuclear has consistently gotten more expensive over time. And we're also building fewer nuclear plants over time. Let's revisit your point: > Even worse, nuclear very
36.
by sir_bearington 6y ago
> I've not seen figures that put the cost of handling it above 30% Really? Is that battery storage? Hydroelectricity? I haven't seen a storage plan, let alone a cheap one, that hasn't assumed some future technology like hy
37.
by sir_bearington 6y ago
> I'm not sure where the logic is here, you are making an assertion without any supporting evidence. You might want to take your own advice. You did the exact same ting, make an assertion without supporting evidence, in your previou
38.
by sir_bearington 6y ago
Likewise, Pripyat remains a ghost town because it was planned city built to support the power plant workforce. Now that the power plants are no longer in operation, there's no incentive to clean it up and resettle it.
39.
by sir_bearington 6y ago
> It's the only reason I can think of for paying inflation linked £92.50 per MwH for 35 years for Hinkley point c when the UK can build wind or solar for £35-40 now and probably less in future years. Really? Intermittency seems like
40.
by sir_bearington 6y ago
> you lose a city every generation No, you don't. Fukushima had a 2010 population of 20,000. It has 17,000 today. And it dropped from 22,000 to 20,000 between 2000 and 2020 so not all of the population reduction was due to nuclear d
41.
by sir_bearington 6y ago
The point is that saying "No one is presently making these" on one hand, and claiming that they're within existing industrial capacity is contradictory. Energy markets like Hawaii and California are already hitting situations
42.
by sir_bearington 6y ago
> That's not actually the key figure of merit, the problem isn't how long stored sources can be used but peak output. That is exactly the problem. Yes, output matter, too, but capacity is the main figure people are interested i
43.
by sir_bearington 6y ago
> That's not 1.5GWh energy stored, it's 1.5GW output from storage systems So how much is actually stored? 1.5GW for 10 minutes? 15 minutes? Watts isn't a unit of storage, watts per a unit of time is a unit of storage.
44.
by sir_bearington 6y ago
Th fact that California only has 1.5 GWh of storage is precisely the reason why wind and solar cannot form the primary source of energy. Who cares if the state met it's storage goals if the storage goals were tiny?
45.
by sir_bearington 6y ago
Really? What company can I call up and buy 50 GWh of storage from? That's only 6 minutes worth of storage for the USA. I'd say if we could provision 1 hour's worth of storage over the span of a decade, that'd amount to a
46.
by sir_bearington 6y ago
Global daily electricity consumption is 60TWh per day. And that's only Electricity consumption. Total energy consumption is more than 100TWh per day. The duration of storage to fulfill 100% of this demand with renewables varies depen
47.
by sir_bearington 6y ago
> although it's more than just using Li-ion batteries. It'd probably be helpful to elaborate, rather than just insist that the above commenter is wrong and loosely suggest at other solutions. Things like hydrogen storage, synt
48.
by sir_bearington 6y ago
It is highly relevant, because renewables are not presently capable of replacing fossil fuels. And they won't be until massive energy storage systems, literally thousands of times better than what we have now, is developed. California,
49.
by sir_bearington 6y ago
Yes, but the cost is spread out over all the nuclear plants in operation. Nuclear energy already provides 10% of the world's nuclear power. We currently average one significant nuclear catastrophe every 20 years. $15 billion every 2 ye
50.
by sir_bearington 6y ago
I like framing the problem in this term. Our ultimate goal is decarbonization: $1 million per gram of C02 emitted unless equivalent mass is sequestered. Do we have a realistic plan to built a wind and solar grid under that market? I don&#x2
51.
by sir_bearington 6y ago
> The order of magnitude of Fukushima cleanup costs is $1 trillion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_disaster_cleanup#Cos ... Even the oft-cited $200 billion is an exaggeration. Bear in mind these figures from
52.
by sir_bearington 6y ago
Even a much more modest goal of provisioning a single day of storage would entail 11.5TWh of storage. Dozens of 100 MWh facilities is still in the single digit GWh range. That's six orders of magnitude. And this isn't even taking
53.
by sir_bearington 6y ago
"Accept brownouts" really just means "keep using fossil fuels" people don't accept brownouts, they buy generators. At this point, it's better to just keep burning natural gas since combined cycle plants are 1.5
54.
by sir_bearington 6y ago
> That’s ~2.7 orders of magnitude time larger than the cited current installed storage, which isn’t even remotely 6+ orders of magnitude. But almost all (~95%) of the installed grid storage capacity is in hydroelectric storage. The above
55.
by sir_bearington 6y ago
Pumped hydroelectric has good capacity, but doesn't scale well. The right geography is the main limiting factor, accessibility is a second. The places with good hydroelectric potential tend to be very remote, in the mountains. It'
56.
by sir_bearington 6y ago
To put these in perspective, the US consumes 500 GWh of electricity every hour. Of the 23 GWh of existing storage, 20 GWh come in the form of hydroelectricity. 100 MWh of storage only amounts to 1.4 seconds of electricity storage. We don&#x
57.
by sir_bearington 6y ago
Neither of these articles offers a detailed plan on how this storage will be provisioned. The second doesn't even mention storage at all, only that Europe has enough wind power to power the whole world. Sure, but that's not very u
58.
by sir_bearington 6y ago
There isn't remotely enough storage available to make wind and solar feasible. To put this in perspective, the world consumes 60 TWh of electricity daily, about 2.5 TWh per hour. We have only a couple GWh of battery storage. Hydroelect
59.
by sir_bearington 6y ago
> Bingo. Nuclear is just ridiculously expensive compared to Wind/Solar. You could overbuild 2-3x and maybe even add batteries. Batteries will never have sufficient capacity to delivery any meaningful amount of storage. This is why a
60.
by sir_bearington 6y ago
Biomass generates ~10% of the electricity from one country in Europe. Biomass is useful in countries like Brazil where extensive farmland means biodiesel is a viable automobile fuel. But for grid generation, the watts per acre is insuffic

More ›