I’m curious what caused those 0.02 deaths per terawatt for solar.
[deleted]
Nuclear energy is clean
11–20 of 709 posts
Re: Nuclear energy is clean
#12> But the amount of concrete and steel for sun and wind is striking. This has to do with the low energy density of these two. No, it's not striking at all, and this is just as BS argument as the people arguing that nuclear isn't clean. As far as the energy density, include all the steel and concrete used outside of the reaction chamber, and you will find that nuclear and solar are pretty much on the same order of mag…
> all this is misdirection from the real challenges of nuclear, which is finding somebody who can build it and somebody who is willing to take the financial risk of nuclear, when it looks like a terribles mis allocation of capital, if one's goal is to decarbonize energy.
I have read that there is much more nuance in nuclear pricing. Past projects were bespoke and subject to changing bureaucratic requirements. There are numerous startups working to bring down cost.
https://news.mit.edu/2020/reasons-nuclear-overruns-1118
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_nuclear_power_pla...
Re: Nuclear energy is clean
#13Super interesting how there is a big push for nuclear in the tech world right now. To play the devils advocate, there are some pretty solid reasons why Nuclear is not ideal.The biggest one to me is the risk or nuclear material proliferation: Iran for instance is hiding their military nuclear program behind a civilian nuclear goal. Nuclear is probably net better than coal but it's not the (only) solution to climate ch…
If the US built more clean nuclear plants that would somehow help Iran develop nuclear weapons faster? Surely the slope cannot be that slippery.
Re: Nuclear energy is clean
#14We saw another downside of nuclear power in Ukraine: When Russian troops attacked towards Enerhodar and there was shelling in the area the safety of the reactor could not be guaranteed. In the end, containment can be guaranteed w.r.t to internal accidents but no facility can ever be safe from outside issues like war, natural disaster or politics. Solar has less single points of failure and if it fails not much happen…
Nuclear energy is safe but humans are not.
Re: Nuclear energy is clean
#15I find it asonishing that only now I learn that radioactive waste stays much longer radioactive than being dangerous. Also other good arguments are put forward by normalizing material costs VS expected energy production capacity.
radioactive waste stays much longer radioactive than being dangerous
If it’s radioactive it’s dangerous. The article points out that radioactive waste doesn’t stay radioactive for very long, contrary to what is commonly believed.
Re: Nuclear energy is clean
#16Potentially we can't build nuclear fast enough to replace fossil fuels https://youtu.be/O0pt3ioQuNc 22:19
Re: Nuclear energy is clean
#17I think nuclear power plants aren't worth the risk. I often hear arguments such as that modern reactors don't have the issues old ones had etc.. As long as it can't be guaranteed to me that e.g. a terror attack doesn't cause a 1000 km2 area around the plant to be unlivable for 100 years, I most likely won't change my opinion.
I think living in the stone age is better than taking the risk.
Re: Nuclear energy is clean
#18We saw another downside of nuclear power in Ukraine: When Russian troops attacked towards Enerhodar and there was shelling in the area the safety of the reactor could not be guaranteed. In the end, containment can be guaranteed w.r.t to internal accidents but no facility can ever be safe from outside issues like war, natural disaster or politics. Solar has less single points of failure and if it fails not much happen…
This is one of the few good arguments against nuclear, especially large installations that produce a huge percentage of a region's power.
Even if you can design it in such a way that an external attack is very unlikely to cause a meltdown, it's a juicy and easy target for an adversary to cripple your electricity production. A few dozen well placed missiles might be all you need to take an entire nation that's heavily nuclear dependent to its knees.
On the other hand, solar and wind are hugely decentralized and distributed, making an attack that destroys these generators drastically more expensive. An adversary might still be able to take out the grid by targeting transmission infrastructure, but recovering from it should be relatively quick because the actual generators are all still intact.
But perhaps this flaw is alleviated by smaller scale reactors that produce a much smaller percentage of a region's electricity.
Re: Nuclear energy is clean
#19We saw another downside of nuclear power in Ukraine: When Russian troops attacked towards Enerhodar and there was shelling in the area the safety of the reactor could not be guaranteed. In the end, containment can be guaranteed w.r.t to internal accidents but no facility can ever be safe from outside issues like war, natural disaster or politics. Solar has less single points of failure and if it fails not much happen…
[deleted]
Re: Nuclear energy is clean
#20> But the amount of concrete and steel for sun and wind is striking. This has to do with the low energy density of these two. No, it's not striking at all, and this is just as BS argument as the people arguing that nuclear isn't clean. As far as the energy density, include all the steel and concrete used outside of the reaction chamber, and you will find that nuclear and solar are pretty much on the same order of mag…
To me, it's about the shape of the logistic curve from planning, through construction to supply, and it's lifetime. We should start nuclear construction now, but for supply in 8+ years time. And therefore we should start increasing construction of wind, solar, pumped hydro and battery now, to supply lower watts, but useful watts inside the 8 year window. As supply matches demand we can remove coal and gas, and when t…
We should do some of all of that, I agree in large part (along with some diversified storage), the issue as the parent comment pointed out is who is going to stake billions on what looks like it will be a risky and poor ROI with significant construction delays and cost overruns. Would be easier for China