Grid power discussion (solar, wind, nuclear, etc.)

[Novus America]

No. We'd still be better off if we'd fully nuclearized with uranium. We'd still be better off if we only fully nuclearize with uranium.

I'm not too sure about that, not only because uranium fission would end up being obsolete in comparison with thorium, with it costing even more to either upkeep the nuclear plants or to replace them with thorium designs. But also Uranium is much more dangerous in both the terms of potential failure as well as the potential to create nuclear bombs. Any amount of increase in uranium power to create nuclear rockets is a bad thing. It's even worse if we tried to normalize it in places where terrorism lies, we most certainly don't want uranium power plants within the influence of terrorists.

Uranium plants could be later converted to Thorium at a much lower cost than an all new construction.
Sure they should be implemented in stable places who already have them but they solves most the problems. The EU, US and PRC are the biggest polluters and we already have nuke plants and nuclear weapons.

At least implement uranium power in those three until Thorium is up and running.

[Crockerland]

But also Uranium is much more dangerous in both the terms of potential failure as well as the potential to create nuclear bombs.

Not really.

Any amount of increase in uranium power to create nuclear rockets is a bad thing. It's even worse if we tried to normalize it in places where terrorism lies, we most certainly don't want uranium power plants within the influence of terrorists.

Or Thorium power plants either, since, they make Uranium that can be used in bombs.

https://whatisnuclear.com/thorium-myths.html#myth3

Nuclear reactors, by their nature, split atoms in a chain reaction to release energy slowly, safely, and under control. If a nefarious operator controls such a system, they can use various means to extract the fissile nuclear fuel atoms and concentrate them into a weapon. Thus, all reactors require safeguards and inspections from the UN nuclear watchdog, the IAEA. This includes Thorium reactors.

Thorium reactors work by breeding Th-232 through Protactinium-233 (27.4 day half life) and into Uranium-233, which is fissile. Pa-233 is a pretty strong neutron absorber, so the MSBR (basically the LFTR) has to extract it from the core once it is produced and let it decay to U-233 away from the neutrons. Once the U-233 is created, it gets fed back into the reactor. Well, if you went rogue, you could build up a little excess reactivity (maybe add some low-enriched U-235?) and then divert the freshly-bred U-233 into a weapons stream to make U-233 nuclear bombs. It may be difficult to do this several times without going subcritical, but it certainly could be done. A U-233-filled bomb has been tested before, and it worked just fine.

And even if that wasn't the case, I really don't want terrorists to have access to any large amount of radioactive material, they could just make a dirty bomb. Keeping such materials out of the hands of terrorists is a priority, whether fissile or not. Even if Thorium couldn't be used specifically to make atomic bombs, that wouldn't make its proliferation to terrorists and rogue states a non-issue.

Though, again, moot point since Thorium powerplants can be used to make bombs.

[Thermodolia]

For grid power, coal all the way, baby. It's cheap, it's plentiful, and it's easy to store. Petroleum's a close second, but its best use is in plane and car engines. Running a grid on wind and solar is quite simply a joke,

Coal is widely agreed to be among the worst ways to get power. There are much better forms of electricity generation available, whether you prefer fossil fuels (Natural Gas), alternative energy (Nuclear), or "Green" power (Hydroelectric), coal is not going to come out on top.

Also, Petroleum as a close second for the best grid electricity source? Really? What's in third place? Whale oil?

*in my best 19th century british accent* I say my dear chap. This atom smashing business sounds rather ghastly. Well I’m off to oppress my child workforce. Pip pip

[Novus America]

But also Uranium is much more dangerous in both the terms of potential failure as well as the potential to create nuclear bombs.

Not really.

Any amount of increase in uranium power to create nuclear rockets is a bad thing. It's even worse if we tried to normalize it in places where terrorism lies, we most certainly don't want uranium power plants within the influence of terrorists.

Or Thorium power plants either, since, they make Uranium that can be used in bombs.

https://whatisnuclear.com/thorium-myths.html#myth3

Nuclear reactors, by their nature, split atoms in a chain reaction to release energy slowly, safely, and under control. If a nefarious operator controls such a system, they can use various means to extract the fissile nuclear fuel atoms and concentrate them into a weapon. Thus, all reactors require safeguards and inspections from the UN nuclear watchdog, the IAEA. This includes Thorium reactors.

Thorium reactors work by breeding Th-232 through Protactinium-233 (27.4 day half life) and into Uranium-233, which is fissile. Pa-233 is a pretty strong neutron absorber, so the MSBR (basically the LFTR) has to extract it from the core once it is produced and let it decay to U-233 away from the neutrons. Once the U-233 is created, it gets fed back into the reactor. Well, if you went rogue, you could build up a little excess reactivity (maybe add some low-enriched U-235?) and then divert the freshly-bred U-233 into a weapons stream to make U-233 nuclear bombs. It may be difficult to do this several times without going subcritical, but it certainly could be done. A U-233-filled bomb has been tested before, and it worked just fine.

And even if that wasn't the case, I really don't want terrorists to have access to any large amount of radioactive material, they could just make a dirty bomb. Keeping such materials out of the hands of terrorists is a priority, whether fissile or not. Even if Thorium couldn't be used specifically to make atomic bombs, that wouldn't make its proliferation to terrorists and rogue states a non-issue.

Though, again, moot point since Thorium powerplants can be used to make bombs.

Although nuclear proliferation is a moot point for the Russia, US, EU and PRC because we already have nuclear weapons. So that is not a concern for the 4 of us nuclearizing to replace fossils.

Which even if only the 4 of us did, would still massively reduce global emissions as collectively we are by far the biggest and together make up more than half the emissions, more than the rest of the work combined.
https://images.app.goo.gl/NijcsrJAieiNaKeB6

India too already has nuclear weapons although with them it is more difficult because they are not a NPT approved nuclear state.

By focusing on nuclear in the EU/UK, US, RF and PRC we address more than half of global emissions with no nuclear proliferation issue.

The US can export electricity to Mexico today for example. (As much as I like nuclear power not sure Mexico is a good candidate to build it at this time).

[UniversalCommons]

Nuclear recycling is a big issue as well. France reprocesses its spent fuel. The United States does not. This means there are much bigger stock piles of nuclear waste. Bill Gates started a project with China to build a reactor that used nuclear waste called the Traveling Wave Reactor. Our current administration killed it because Gates was working with China in a joint project and they claimed that nuclear reprocessing was a tool for weapons proliferation.

[Novus America]

Nuclear recycling is a big issue as well. France reprocesses its spent fuel. The United States does not. This means there are much bigger stock piles of nuclear waste. Bill Gates started a project with China to build a reactor that used nuclear waste called the Traveling Wave Reactor. Our current administration killed it because Gates was working with China in a joint project and they claimed that nuclear reprocessing was a tool for weapons proliferation.

It actually is not a big issue:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes ... lanet/amp/

We used to have reprocessing capability until Carter killed it. We could again.
Their is some 46 billion unspent money in our nuclear waste disposal fund as well.

Not that we really need to use it anyways. Because nuclear waste is actually not a real big issue. It kills a grand total of zero people a year.
Leaving it where it is not an issue, at least in until we start running short of Uranium and Thorium and need to reprocess it it. But that is a long ways away.

[UniversalCommons]

What is counted is deaths by accidents which are visible. Deaths by cancer are not counted. This is where people get afraid. Nuclear radiation is not particular visible, there is no way that you are going to get health coverage for it. It is most likely going to be covered up and when it is reported by some green group, it is going to be exaggerated with a dose of fear.

This is an article on Chernobyl from Newsweek. It is not the most reputable source. It has quotes for between 4,000 people getting and 200,000 people getting cancer from Chernobyl. You get slow nonvisible politicized deaths which are about fear.

https://www.newsweek.com/chernobyl-disa ... er-1444029

There is a mix of secrecy and politicization which terrifies people. The word coverup goes with exaggeration so that it confuses things with massive inaccuracy.

Part of this fear is that very few people actually know how nuclear energy works. It is complicated and fearsome. The promise that nothing can go wrong repeatedly is nonsense. The exaggeration is just as bad.

To make this more interesting you go to the NIH website in the United States and they tell most of what is known about radiation cancer deaths comes from Chernobyl. None of it is accurate. It is all politicized.
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/cau ... fact-sheet

Nuclear energy is great for space exploration. There are very few people up there who are not willing to take the risk and there is very little life to kill.

[Neu California]

(I'm not quoting the article because I'm on tablet, where quoting is a giant pita, but...) Microsoft plans to go carbon negative by 2030 with a heavy reliance on renewables and battery based transport

https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2020/0 ... e-by-2030/

Ctrl f "Taking responsibility for our carbon footprint" for information on their specific plans.

Sounds like a major investment in renewables from on of the nation's largest corporations is inbound.

[Crockerland]

Nuclear recycling is a big issue as well. France reprocesses its spent fuel. The United States does not. This means there are much bigger stock piles of nuclear waste. Bill Gates started a project with China to build a reactor that used nuclear waste called the Traveling Wave Reactor. Our current administration killed it because Gates was working with China in a joint project and they claimed that nuclear reprocessing was a tool for weapons proliferation.

It actually is not a big issue:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes ... lanet/amp/

We used to have reprocessing capability until Carter killed it. We could again.
Their is some 46 billion unspent money in our nuclear waste disposal fund as well.

Not that we really need to use it anyways. Because nuclear waste is actually not a real big issue. It kills a grand total of zero people a year.
Leaving it where it is not an issue, at least in until we start running short of Uranium and Thorium and need to reprocess it it. But that is a long ways away.

Since we're on the topic of nuclear waste, tangentially related: 'Ever notice that nobody talks about the radioactive waste produced in the creation of wind turbines?

https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/renewable/wind/big-winds-dirty-little-secret-rare-earth-minerals/

Estimates of the exact amount of rare earth minerals in wind turbines vary, but in any case the numbers are staggering. According to the Bulletin of Atomic Sciences, a 2 megawatt (MW) wind turbine contains about 800 pounds of neodymium and 130 pounds of dysprosium. The MIT study cited above estimates that a 2 MW wind turbine contains about 752 pounds of rare earth minerals.

To quantify this in terms of environmental damages, consider that mining one ton of rare earth minerals produces about one ton of radioactive waste, according to the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security. In 2012, the U.S. added a record 13,131 MW of wind generating capacity. That means that between 4.9 million pounds (using MIT’s estimate) and 6.1 million pounds (using the Bulletin of Atomic Science’s estimate) of rare earths were used in wind turbines installed in 2012. It also means that between 4.9 million and 6.1 million pounds of radioactive waste were created to make these wind turbines.

For perspective, America’s nuclear industry produces between 4.4 million and 5 million pounds of spent nuclear fuel each year. That means the U.S. wind industry may well have created more radioactive waste last year than our entire nuclear industry produced in spent fuel. In this sense, the nuclear industry seems to be doing more with less: nuclear energy comprised about one-fifth of America’s electrical generation in 2012, while wind accounted for just 3.5 percent of all electricity generated in the United States.

Interesting stuff.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

It actually is not a big issue:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes ... lanet/amp/

We used to have reprocessing capability until Carter killed it. We could again.
Their is some 46 billion unspent money in our nuclear waste disposal fund as well.

Not that we really need to use it anyways. Because nuclear waste is actually not a real big issue. It kills a grand total of zero people a year.
Leaving it where it is not an issue, at least in until we start running short of Uranium and Thorium and need to reprocess it it. But that is a long ways away.

Since we're on the topic of nuclear waste, tangentially related: 'Ever notice that nobody talks about the radioactive waste produced in the creation of wind turbines?

https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/renewable/wind/big-winds-dirty-little-secret-rare-earth-minerals/

Estimates of the exact amount of rare earth minerals in wind turbines vary, but in any case the numbers are staggering. According to the Bulletin of Atomic Sciences, a 2 megawatt (MW) wind turbine contains about 800 pounds of neodymium and 130 pounds of dysprosium. The MIT study cited above estimates that a 2 MW wind turbine contains about 752 pounds of rare earth minerals.

To quantify this in terms of environmental damages, consider that mining one ton of rare earth minerals produces about one ton of radioactive waste, according to the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security. In 2012, the U.S. added a record 13,131 MW of wind generating capacity. That means that between 4.9 million pounds (using MIT’s estimate) and 6.1 million pounds (using the Bulletin of Atomic Science’s estimate) of rare earths were used in wind turbines installed in 2012. It also means that between 4.9 million and 6.1 million pounds of radioactive waste were created to make these wind turbines.

For perspective, America’s nuclear industry produces between 4.4 million and 5 million pounds of spent nuclear fuel each year. That means the U.S. wind industry may well have created more radioactive waste last year than our entire nuclear industry produced in spent fuel. In this sense, the nuclear industry seems to be doing more with less: nuclear energy comprised about one-fifth of America’s electrical generation in 2012, while wind accounted for just 3.5 percent of all electricity generated in the United States.

Interesting stuff.

Interesting indeed. We've probably been protected from knowledge about the nuclear waste produced in rare earth refining, since it's largely done in China. Who knows what they did with the waste, I'm guessing they buried it though it may also have gone into their civilian and military nuclear programs.

It would not be the same as reactor waste, likely much lower grade, but I don't know.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

What is counted is deaths by accidents which are visible. Deaths by cancer are not counted. This is where people get afraid. Nuclear radiation is not particular visible, there is no way that you are going to get health coverage for it.

No, that's silly. If you want me to read a lengthy post, try not to say something silly in the first paragraph.

Probably a better point is that cancer can kill you whether your insurance covers it or not.

[Novus America]

Since we're on the topic of nuclear waste, tangentially related: 'Ever notice that nobody talks about the radioactive waste produced in the creation of wind turbines?

https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/renewable/wind/big-winds-dirty-little-secret-rare-earth-minerals/

Estimates of the exact amount of rare earth minerals in wind turbines vary, but in any case the numbers are staggering. According to the Bulletin of Atomic Sciences, a 2 megawatt (MW) wind turbine contains about 800 pounds of neodymium and 130 pounds of dysprosium. The MIT study cited above estimates that a 2 MW wind turbine contains about 752 pounds of rare earth minerals.

To quantify this in terms of environmental damages, consider that mining one ton of rare earth minerals produces about one ton of radioactive waste, according to the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security. In 2012, the U.S. added a record 13,131 MW of wind generating capacity. That means that between 4.9 million pounds (using MIT’s estimate) and 6.1 million pounds (using the Bulletin of Atomic Science’s estimate) of rare earths were used in wind turbines installed in 2012. It also means that between 4.9 million and 6.1 million pounds of radioactive waste were created to make these wind turbines.

For perspective, America’s nuclear industry produces between 4.4 million and 5 million pounds of spent nuclear fuel each year. That means the U.S. wind industry may well have created more radioactive waste last year than our entire nuclear industry produced in spent fuel. In this sense, the nuclear industry seems to be doing more with less: nuclear energy comprised about one-fifth of America’s electrical generation in 2012, while wind accounted for just 3.5 percent of all electricity generated in the United States.

Interesting stuff.

Interesting indeed. We've probably been protected from knowledge about the nuclear waste produced in rare earth refining, since it's largely done in China. Who knows what they did with the waste, I'm guessing they buried it though it may also have gone into their civilian and military nuclear programs.

It would not be the same as reactor waste, likely much lower grade, but I don't know.

Refining of rare earths produces thorium.
The solution to rate earth nuclear waste? Thorium reactors.

[Novus America]

What is counted is deaths by accidents which are visible. Deaths by cancer are not counted. This is where people get afraid. Nuclear radiation is not particular visible, there is no way that you are going to get health coverage for it. It is most likely going to be covered up and when it is reported by some green group, it is going to be exaggerated with a dose of fear.

This is an article on Chernobyl from Newsweek. It is not the most reputable source. It has quotes for between 4,000 people getting and 200,000 people getting cancer from Chernobyl. You get slow nonvisible politicized deaths which are about fear.

https://www.newsweek.com/chernobyl-disa ... er-1444029

There is a mix of secrecy and politicization which terrifies people. The word coverup goes with exaggeration so that it confuses things with massive inaccuracy.

Part of this fear is that very few people actually know how nuclear energy works. It is complicated and fearsome. The promise that nothing can go wrong repeatedly is nonsense. The exaggeration is just as bad.

To make this more interesting you go to the NIH website in the United States and they tell most of what is known about radiation cancer deaths comes from Chernobyl. None of it is accurate. It is all politicized.
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/cau ... fact-sheet

Nuclear energy is great for space exploration. There are very few people up there who are not willing to take the risk and there is very little life to kill.

Actually estimates of cancer deaths are counted. And the cancer risk from a reactor with a containment structure is basically zero.

You are at FAR more risk walking outside in the sun.

And the rare earth waste from solar and wind? Can cause cancer. Obviously fossil fuels can. Nuclear has a lower cancer risk.

But you did hit in one thing, the biggest problem with nuclear power is people’s ignorance and a ton of anti nuclear propaganda.

[Temacht]

I like the idea of a fossil fuel exclusionary, all of the above mix. I would also like the mix to be based largely on hydroelectric and nuclear. One could use nuclear for base line power generation, hydro as a flex source, solar and wind when available, geothermal where applicable.

[Kathyleen]

In my opinion solar power it's our future. A few solar PV panels installed, DIY will take care of your base house consumption. As in this article Do Solar Panels Need Maintenance? - Blog About Solar Energy | Websolarguide said If you buy well, then even without subsidies, you could look at a payback time of around 10-12 years, which is not bad at all.
And of course, everyone really should make a contribution to fighting climate change if and when they can...

[Novus America]

I like the idea of a fossil fuel exclusionary, all of the above mix. I would also like the mix to be based largely on hydroelectric and nuclear. One could use nuclear for base line power generation, hydro as a flex source, solar and wind when available, geothermal where applicable.

This. The biggest issue with nuclear is it makes little sense to vary the output, but demand varies.
Nuclear meets the minimum demand, other more variable sources the peak.

Although you could just add a reverse osmosis plant to the nuclear one, which could use power production in excess of normal outside demand to make fresh water.
Or pump a hydroelectric dam in reverse.

[UniversalCommons]

The big problem with nuclear is that it is very expensive to build out and requires a lot of resources up front. The initial cost is very high because of all the safety features and technical requirements. There is also a fear of a massive disaster. Most of the time nuclear is safe. The problem is it is not safe, it is truly terrible, you get Three Mile Island, Fukushima, and Chernobyl. Big expensive accidents. You essentially have to build the plants like bunkers to avoid this kind of problem.

It is much cheaper to install wind power, solar power, or hydroelectric and it is built much faster with fewer permits. By the time a plant gets built, several wind farms, small hydroelectric, and solar facilities can be built.

Another major disadvantage is that the current philosophy on nuclear power is very centralized. There does not seem to be a move towards more decentralized smaller nuclear power plants that would be safer.

The grid is moving to distributed energy sources. It is also moving to a smart grid with smart metering. The old nuclear power plants are not designed for the new grid. Because it is centralized it does not allow for distributed power generation. In Germany for example, people can put up their own solar and wind power and sell energy back to the grid. This is entrepreneurial and distributed something which should be encouraged in my opinion. People also can produce biogas on farms as well to sell.

Solar, wind, geothermal, and hydroelectric are not extractive resources. They are continuous and they don't require extensive mining. It is a different philosophy. Wind and solar are becoming cheaper, competitive with gas, coal, and other power sources.

[Risottia]

I don't understand why people mean only photovoltaic by "solar" and forget the solar thermal generators.

[Novus America]

The big problem with nuclear is that it is very expensive to build out and requires a lot of resources up front. The initial cost is very high because of all the safety features and technical requirements. There is also a fear of a massive disaster. Most of the time nuclear is safe. The problem is it is not safe, it is truly terrible, you get Three Mile Island, Fukushima, and Chernobyl. Big expensive accidents. You essentially have to build the plants like bunkers to avoid this kind of problem.

It is much cheaper to install wind power, solar power, or hydroelectric and it is built much faster with fewer permits. By the time a plant gets built, several wind farms, small hydroelectric, and solar facilities can be built.

Another major disadvantage is that the current philosophy on nuclear power is very centralized. There does not seem to be a move towards more decentralized smaller nuclear power plants that would be safer.

The grid is moving to distributed energy sources. It is also moving to a smart grid with smart metering. The old nuclear power plants are not designed for the new grid. Because it is centralized it does not allow for distributed power generation. In Germany for example, people can put up their own solar and wind power and sell energy back to the grid. This is entrepreneurial and distributed something which should be encouraged in my opinion. People also can produce biogas on farms as well to sell.

Solar, wind, geothermal, and hydroelectric are not extractive resources. They are continuous and they don't require extensive mining. It is a different philosophy. Wind and solar are becoming cheaper, competitive with gas, coal, and other power sources.

Three Mile Island killed nobody, hurt nobody and did no damage outside the reactor containment structure. Yes should be a bunker like structure (something Chernobyl and Fukushima lacked) but if you do the risk basically zero. Also negative void coefficient reactors cannot possibly melt down. It all comes down to design. Not all nuclear plants are created equal. Chernobyl was a completely different design than others.

The idea that solar and wind are non extractive is false. Wind turbines and solar panels are made from materials and have a limited lifetime.
After a certain period they lost be replaced. By ones using more materials.

Wind and solar actually require far more extraction on a per kilowatt hour basis than nuclear. Land is also a problem. Wind and solar require extractive use of land area.

Germany has s a horrible example because they have soaring energy costs AND increasingly pollution thanks to their idiotic nuclear phase out.
Plus Germany still relies on conventional gas and coal plants.

Although obviously one wind turbine costs less than one nuclear reactors, it takes literally THOUSANDS of wind turbines to generate as much power as one nuclear reactor.

So although the total numbers being built is faster, it is not nearly enough.

Distributed power works okay in rural areas. Although reliable energy storage is a problem.
But big cities like NYC cannot use it. Even if every roof in NYC has a solar panel it would not generate nearly enough power.

Given their crap land density, wind and solar need sparsely populated areas to supply completely.

Yes nuclear is expensive up front, but for the amount of energy produced over its life cycle, it uses the least amount of land and materials (yes much less materials than wind or solar).

Which is why nuclear needs government subsidies (which wind and solar already get).
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshe ... power/amp/

Had all the money Germany and California spent on subsidies for wind and solar been spent on nuclear the outcome would be better.

[Temacht]

I see a lot of people talk about batteries as a solution to the limitations of intermittent sources like solar and wind, but I'm curious. What are the repercussions of extracting metals and creating acids to make these batteries?

[Nakena]

I see a lot of people talk about batteries as a solution to the limitations of intermittent sources like solar and wind, but I'm curious. What are the repercussions of extracting metals and creating acids to make these batteries?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-st ... lectricity

[Agarntrop]

Convert fully to nuclear or cheap renewables. Coal and natural gas are polluting, so expensive they're only kept afloat by corrupt government subsidies, and inefficient.

[Nakena]

Convert fully to nuclear or cheap renewables. Coal and natural gas are polluting, so expensive they're only kept afloat by corrupt government subsidies, and inefficient.

Natural Gas has become quite efficient actually and produces a lot less CO2 than Coal/oil.

[The New California Republic]

Three Mile Island killed nobody, hurt nobody and did no damage outside the reactor containment structure. Yes should be a bunker like structure (something Chernobyl and Fukushima lacked) but if you do the risk basically zero. Also negative void coefficient reactors cannot possibly melt down. It all comes down to design. Not all nuclear plants are created equal. Chernobyl was a completely different design than others.

Hell, I've been in Chernobyl NPP and I still support nuclear.

[Window Land]

Convert fully to nuclear or cheap renewables. Coal and natural gas are polluting, so expensive they're only kept afloat by corrupt government subsidies, and inefficient.

Natural Gas has become quite efficient actually and produces a lot less CO2 than Coal/oil.

The big thing with natural gas is its tendency to leak and blow buildings up.
edit: grammar is a thing