I saw this recently: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbrT3m89Y3M
I hope they get adopted and maybe even replace the old ones plus coal/gas powered ones.
Why Nuclear Must Be Part Of The Energy Solution (2018)
51–60 of 249 posts
Re: Why Nuclear Must Be Part Of The Energy Solution (2018)
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Batteries will be the long term solution to energy baseload needs, not nuclear. Viable baseload battery storage is science fiction. Nuclear works now, in this century.
AFAIK gravity storage is in the works now. Nuclear works, with large risks, but so does hydro, solar, wind, without the risks of nuclear. And as we're approaching effective fusion, starting to phase out construction of new nuclears makes complete sense.
Like all issues with climate change and energy, you can't stop at whether it exists or not. Gravity storage just does not scale to the point we want.
Re: Why Nuclear Must Be Part Of The Energy Solution (2018)
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Batteries will be the long term solution to energy baseload needs, not nuclear. Viable baseload battery storage is science fiction. Nuclear works now, in this century.
AFAIK gravity storage is in the works now. Nuclear works, with large risks, but so does hydro, solar, wind, without the risks of nuclear. And as we're approaching effective fusion, starting to phase out construction of new nuclears makes complete sense.
Solar and wind do not "work" in the same sense that nuclear works. Nuclear does not go to zero when the wind stops blowing or the sun isn't shining. Solar and wind cannot meet baseload needs in most places. They may perhaps be able to decades or centuries in the future when we get our long-awaited flying cars, but they cannot do so now.
Re: Why Nuclear Must Be Part Of The Energy Solution (2018)
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
Renewables are based on the hope that one day we [...] get batteries with energy storage seen only in Star Trek. You're right that we aren't there yet, but Star Trek level technology is hyperbole. Just to give one example, the German gas grid can store several hundreds TWh of energy, and there are lab results that indicate we might be able to improve power-to-gas-to-power efficiencies to make this viable[1]. [1] http…
[1] is really interesting, but it is literally burning natural gas with extra steps. How is it better than normal gas generation?
The issue with burning natural gas (i.e. from fossil sources) is that it increases the amount of carbon in circulation.
Re: Why Nuclear Must Be Part Of The Energy Solution (2018)
#55No other fuel has the energy density of nuclear, no other source has the capability to run 24/7/365. Renewables are based on the hope that one day we will either had transcontinental grids, which no one has managed to build, or get batteries with energy storage seen only in Star Trek. Nuclear on the other hand has been here for 50 years and could have already solved our CO2 problems. But because it's unfashinable to…
I can't understand the downvotes you got. You pushed may be a bit on political stereotypes, but other than that you just stated the facts.
Are the downvotes really hard to understand?
Claiming that renewables are untenable without unavailable fantasy technology is clearly ill-informed. Renewables are already contributing a significant proportion of generated electricity globally - even in the US it's over 20% versus 8% for nuclear. In many European countries, renewables provide over 30% of the consumed electricity. Renewables are already a big part of electricity generation globally despite the lack of star-trek type batteries.
Then the poster turns to politics, suggesting it's just hippies and liberals who have prevented the triumph of nuclear. This is also clearly untrue - the main reason nuclear has all but been abandoned as a source of electricity was decided by the markets - it's just too expensive - without massive government backing nuclear is not economically feasible. Until the 80s, government support was justified because nuclear expertise and materials had military uses but without government support, there hasn't been a single privately financed/build nuclear plant anywhere.
Re: Why Nuclear Must Be Part Of The Energy Solution (2018)
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
We're comparing two neighbourhoods. One has less deaths and less robberies. It is the one with nuclear power. Chernobyl has done less damage and had less impact on those millions of people than the totally routine burning of coal. I grew up in a coal mining region; I fully expect more people suffer negative health outcomes when coal works as expected than in a Class 7 nuclear catastrophe. We just don't count the heal…
> We just don't count the health impacts properly because it is too hard to prove cause and effect. This also goes for nuclear.
The "too hard to prove cause" is for attributing individual cases. In any particularly case - just like with the link of smoking and lung cancer - it is impossible to say if lung problems were caused by coal plants.
Statistical estimates of the amounts of deaths and lung problems coal power plants cause, however, can be much more accurate. And they bespeak hundreds of thousands gruesome deaths from coal every year.
Re: Why Nuclear Must Be Part Of The Energy Solution (2018)
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
Radiation doesn’t only affect humans
And yet the exclusion zone around Chernobyl has biodiversity higher than anywhere else in Europe. So even if nuclear power is as bad as hippies say it's still better for the environment than human civilization.
It seems that this is debatable, as a simple google search turns up completely opposite conclusions, such as this: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-10819027
Re: Why Nuclear Must Be Part Of The Energy Solution (2018)
#58I feel like this is a prime example of someone failing to update their beliefs with new information. For decades it would have been a reasonable position that governments should override political objections, embark upon mass nuclear power programs, and try to drive costs down through economies of scale and process improvements over time. 20 years ago it was arguably a correct and very strong position to take? 10 yea…
It would be better to provide sources for some of those.
Also what do you mean by "baseload business models"?
Re: Why Nuclear Must Be Part Of The Energy Solution (2018)
#59The article does not explain why nuclear must be part of the energy solution. In fact, the argument seem to be that nuclear has been the target of fear mongering from environmentalists and therefore nuclear must be a part of the energy solution which is a fallacy. Germany has decommissioned numerous nuclear plants (Energiewende) and yet its GDP is up and its coal consumption down. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/fact…
"four times as expensive as wind"
This isn't a valid comparison, since wind isn't capable of base load supply.
You would need to factor in storage costs to make the comparison valid.
Re: Why Nuclear Must Be Part Of The Energy Solution (2018)
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not a fan of having cancer rates rise either. I've stated this before, and I'll repeat it here: Solar, wind, geothermal, and hydro are more than enough to power the world. They're cheaper too.
What about the resources needed to build the solar and wind infrastructures ? Metal, extraction of that metal, rare earths,... ? I'm all for solar and wind and whatever, but at some point there are some maths to do... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0W1ZZYIV8o
Isn’t nuclear power really expensive? Solar and wind I think are just materially cheaper than anything else even including construction.
I’m looking at the Lazard 2020 Levelized Cost of Energy report here: https://www.lazard.com/media/451419/lazards-levelized-cost-o...