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

[Pangurstan]

Nuclear is actually the safest main source: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes ... -paid/amp/
Three Mile Island killed and hurt no one.

And why decommission nuclear power plants at all? Keep them running indefinitely.

The main advantage of nuclear is it uses the least amount of land and materials per energy produced. And it is the most reliable and consistent.

Also it can be used most places, even underwater.

But nuclear is not sustainable.

When well-managed, it can be a clean and effective source of energy, but the world must still transition to solar, wind, geothermal. Nuclear can fill the gap between the end of fossil fuels and a full renewable energy infrastructure but it can't be relied on forever. There is only enough uranium for the next 200 years.

Which is why thorium reactors are better because there’s 3x the amount of thorium as uranium, and thorium reactors are safer.

[Novus America]

Nuclear is actually the safest main source: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes ... -paid/amp/
Three Mile Island killed and hurt no one.

And why decommission nuclear power plants at all? Keep them running indefinitely.

The main advantage of nuclear is it uses the least amount of land and materials per energy produced. And it is the most reliable and consistent.

Also it can be used most places, even underwater.

But nuclear is not sustainable.

When well-managed, it can be a clean and effective source of energy, but the world must still transition to solar, wind, geothermal. Nuclear can fill the gap between the end of fossil fuels and a full renewable energy infrastructure but it can't be relied on forever. There is only enough uranium for the next 200 years.

Solar and wind are not truly sustainable as the still use up spaces to use and materials to make.
Geothermal is literally nuclear, it uses the natural radioactive decay in the earth. Geothermal is just pumping water into a nuclear reactor.
But it only works properly in certain places.

And you can recycle the used nuclear fuel.
With reprocessing and thorium, we have enough nuclear fuel for thousands of years.
Which should give us enough to switch to nuclear fusion. Which gives us fuel for billions of years.

Although solar, wind, geothermal, hydro have their place, nuclear has to be a part of the mix.

[Greed and Death]

You left out Hydro power which using modern verticle shaft turbines are less damaging to the environment and one of my favourite options.

I'm persoally a fan of Small scale Solar + Battery systems



I know Nuclear has a lot of things in its favour however the two things you list here are the very reasons why I dont like it. Three melt down incidents in less than 50 years isn't an anomaly its a pattern and decommissioning is a issues right up there with micro-plastic

Three major incidents in 50 years is a miracle for any other form of power aside from Solar. Really Nuclear power should work alongside wind and solar in the idea of a clean energy grid.

If your goal is net zero carbon emissions you need about 75% nuclear and 25% wind and solar.

[Grinning Dragon]

I voted for nuclear, as nuclear energy is a much more viable way to go in the long term.

[US-SSR]

There are currently two elements we can burn to produce the amount of energy we need to support ourselves in the style to which we have become accustomed. One produces global warming (carbon). The other does not (plutonium). We should be building nuke plants like they are going out of style.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Solar is not just solar.

Photovoltaic solar cells rely on the photovoltaic effect, so they'd have to be built carefully; something humans aren't known to do. And then it might be all for nothing if a hailstorm destroys them.

Thermal solar only requires you to make a bunch of mirrors and point them at a nearby solar collector (as per literal 8th grade level science) to boil water and/or melt salt, then store the energy until you need it. This could not only create electricity, but also jobs; anyone can make mirrors, and hiring unemployed people to make as many mirrors as possible means you could set up a bunch of solar collectors in the desert, or at sea, or wherever else there's room for them, and lessen the energy crisis; along with the unemployment crisis; one step at a time.

Also, it'd discredit the anti-carbon-tax-crowd's "it'll destroy jobs" excuse once and for all.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

There are currently two elements we can burn to produce the amount of energy we need to support ourselves in the style to which we have become accustomed. One produces global warming (carbon). The other does not (plutonium). We should be building nuke plants like they are going out of style.

There are two elements we burn to produce energy. They are CARBON and HYDROGEN. Other elements in coal or oil, like sulphur, cause pollution out of proportion to energy, and the quality of coal largely comes down to how little of that rubbish is in it. Anthracite being the cleanest burning and so on.

But I'm not just posting to make fun of your chemistry knowledge. The reason natural gas is a better fuel for CO2 emissions is that it's largely methane (CH4) or ethane (C2H6). The former has almost twice the Hydrogen content of long chain hydrocarbons (coal and oil) so the proportion of energy coming from hydrogen combustion (with water vapor as the waste product) is almost twice as much.

Also mentioning here the "hydrogen economy" which currently is based on hydrocarbons. Using heat and steam, gas oil or coal can be cracked to produce hydrogen gas. Unfortunately it's inefficient AND produces waste of CO2 and even worse Carbon Monoxide. Improvements may be made, but the "hydrogen economy" will have to wait until there is plenty of electricity without emissions. Using electricity for electrolysis (with industrial Oxygen as a byproduct) actually leads to higher emissions if current electricity sources are used.

OK no-one has said "hydrogen for energy" yet so I'm tilting at windmills.

[Novus America]

Solar is not just solar.

Photovoltaic solar cells rely on the photovoltaic effect, so they'd have to be built carefully; something humans aren't known to do. And then it might be all for nothing if a hailstorm destroys them.

Thermal solar only requires you to make a bunch of mirrors and point them at a nearby solar collector (as per literal 8th grade level science) to boil water and/or melt salt, then store the energy until you need it. This could not only create electricity, but also jobs; anyone can make mirrors, and hiring unemployed people to make as many mirrors as possible means you could set up a bunch of solar collectors in the desert, or at sea, or wherever else there's room for them, and lessen the energy crisis; along with the unemployment crisis; one step at a time.

Also, it'd discredit the anti-carbon-tax-crowd's "it'll destroy jobs" excuse once and for all.

Thermal solar is actually a bit more complicated to actually implement well.
It also only works well certain places and uses up a ton of land.
It is no silver bullet.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Solar is not just solar.

Photovoltaic solar cells rely on the photovoltaic effect, so they'd have to be built carefully; something humans aren't known to do. And then it might be all for nothing if a hailstorm destroys them.

Thermal solar only requires you to make a bunch of mirrors and point them at a nearby solar collector (as per literal 8th grade level science) to boil water and/or melt salt, then store the energy until you need it. This could not only create electricity, but also jobs; anyone can make mirrors, and hiring unemployed people to make as many mirrors as possible means you could set up a bunch of solar collectors in the desert, or at sea, or wherever else there's room for them, and lessen the energy crisis; along with the unemployment crisis; one step at a time.

Also, it'd discredit the anti-carbon-tax-crowd's "it'll destroy jobs" excuse once and for all.

Thermal solar is actually a bit more complicated to actually implement well.
It also only works well certain places and uses up a ton of land.
It is no silver bullet.

Start with the deserts. Encroach further and further into climates that get more cloud cover. Some solar energy is always better than none.

There will always be unemployed people, and paying them to make mirrors is better than paying them to sit on their asses doing nothing.

[Azure Panther]

Nuclear Fusion and Nuclear Fission shouldn't be in the same poll option.

I went to a lecture on the subject of the future of fusion plants today. The engineering obstacles are manifold, but it will surely be the way of the future.

[Novus America]

Thermal solar is actually a bit more complicated to actually implement well.
It also only works well certain places and uses up a ton of land.
It is no silver bullet.

Start with the deserts. Encroach further and further into climates that get more cloud cover. Some solar energy is always better than none.

There will always be unemployed people, and paying them to make mirrors is better than paying them to sit on their asses doing nothing.

Deserts are fragile environments. I do not want to see all deserts destroyed.
And not all places are appropriate for it. Plus glass manufacturing has a big environmental impact. You need to get the materials to make it.

Which is why high output per small material input and land input is best.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Nuclear Fusion and Nuclear Fission shouldn't be in the same poll option.

I went to a lecture on the subject of the future of fusion plants today. The engineering obstacles are manifold, but it will surely be the way of the future.

I'm terrified of humanity getting it wrong, though. What if there's risk they're not telling us just like with Fukushima?

[Neu California]

Nuclear Fusion and Nuclear Fission shouldn't be in the same poll option.

I went to a lecture on the subject of the future of fusion plants today. The engineering obstacles are manifold, but it will surely be the way of the future.

Blame having only ten options max. Something has to be pumped together unfortunately

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Deserts are fragile environments. I do not want to see all deserts destroyed.

Well, it's either just "deserts" or "the other environments, and also deserts." I'd rather just deserts.

Also, isn't the main issue the reduced sunlight? The ecosystem would be damaged but not completely destroyed. I'm sure flora better suited to low light and cold temperatures would take its place.

And not all places are appropriate for it.

If it encroaches too far into humid subtropical climates, try the ocean.

Plus glass manufacturing has a big environmental impact.

You don't need glass for solar collectors. Just a rigid object and any adequately reflective material superimposed on it.

You need to get the materials to make it.

As do you with any power plant. Difference is, this one is so simple you can use the unemployed to make it, rather than hiring engineers for their expertise in building things carefully, which you need for literally every other option. (And might not get with any other option anyway.)

Which is why high output per small material input and land input is best.

Nah, "low maintenance" is the best. The less maintenance you need to do, the greater certainty that it paying for itself is not a matter of if, but when.

[Novus America]

Nuclear Fusion and Nuclear Fission shouldn't be in the same poll option.

I went to a lecture on the subject of the future of fusion plants today. The engineering obstacles are manifold, but it will surely be the way of the future.

I'm terrified of humanity getting it wrong, though. What if there's risk they're not telling us just like with Fukushima?

Which killed one person.

And by the logic we could never use anything because humans might screw it up.

And nuclear in the US has resulted in negligible harm. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes ... -paid/amp/

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Which killed one person.

For now. The contamination is still out there, though.

Also, "non-lethal" =/= "harmless."

And by the logic we could never use anything because humans might screw it up.

Not always. Just when there's immediately obvious alternatives whose screwups have less potential to cause harm.

And nuclear in the US has resulted in negligible harm.

Partly because they don't rely on it as heavily as Japan. Let's keep it that way.

[Novus America]

Deserts are fragile environments. I do not want to see all deserts destroyed.

Well, it's either just "deserts" or "the other environments, and also deserts." I'd rather just deserts.

Also, isn't the main issue the reduced sunlight? The ecosystem would be damaged but not completely destroyed. I'm sure flora better suited to low light and cold temperatures would take its place.

And not all places are appropriate for it.

If it encroaches too far into humid subtropical climates, try the ocean.

Plus glass manufacturing has a big environmental impact.

You don't need glass for solar collectors. Just a rigid object and any adequately reflective material superimposed on it.

You need to get the materials to make it.

As do you with any power plant. Difference is, this one is so simple you can use the unemployed to make it, rather than hiring engineers for their expertise in building things carefully, which you need for literally every other option. (And might not get with any other option anyway.)

Which is why high output per small material input and land input is best.

Nah, "low maintenance" is the best. The less maintenance you need to do, the greater certainty that it paying for itself is not a matter of if, but when.

No, because we can save deserts and other environments. We can solve the problem without covering millions and millions of acres in mirrors.

And even if you use metal instead of glass, there is still a huge environmental cost.
You are still using limited materials.

Yes all power sources require materials. Some require less than other though.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/scie ... 55997.html

Also concentrated solar is not maintenance free. The reflectors must be continually cleaned and replaced.

[Novus America]

Which killed one person.

For now. The contamination is still out there, though.

Also, "non-lethal" =/= "harmless."

And by the logic we could never use anything because humans might screw it up.

Not always. Just when there's immediately obvious alternatives whose screwups have less potential to cause harm.

And nuclear in the US has resulted in negligible harm.

Partly because they don't rely on it as heavily as Japan. Let's keep it that way.

We have more total reactors than Japan.
Also you can build reactors with a negative void coefficient which literally cannot melt down.
Or simply build adequate containment structures.

It can be easily made safe, and even including those two accidents (which can be easily prevented) it still has a very low risk of harm.

[Novus America]

Nuclear Fusion and Nuclear Fission shouldn't be in the same poll option.

I went to a lecture on the subject of the future of fusion plants today. The engineering obstacles are manifold, but it will surely be the way of the future.

Both are nuclear. And fusion is not currently an option anyways.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

No, because we can save deserts and other environments. We can solve the problem without covering millions and millions of acres in mirrors.

How?

And even if you use metal instead of glass, there is still a huge environmental cost.
You are still using limited materials.

Right, but they don't have to be glass OR metal. For the kind of mirror you put in your bathroom, yeah, you need something flat to make reflective. But for the purposes of solar collectors, it only needs to be rigid.

Yes all power sources require materials. Some require less than other though.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/scie ... 55997.html

Didn't they vouch for its safety before Fukushima too? Kind of puts a hole in their credibility doesn't it?

Also concentrated solar is not maintenance free. The reflectors must be continually cleaned and replaced.

That's why I said "low maintenance," not "no maintenance."

[UniversalCommons]

I think the key to the energy future is high temperatures superconductors and turbines. Wind turbines, wave turbines, solar turbines, electric turbines, etc.

[Azure Panther]

Nuclear Fusion and Nuclear Fission shouldn't be in the same poll option.

I went to a lecture on the subject of the future of fusion plants today. The engineering obstacles are manifold, but it will surely be the way of the future.

I'm terrified of humanity getting it wrong, though. What if there's risk they're not telling us just like with Fukushima?

In nuclear fission (the nuclear plants we have now), if something goes wrong with the plant, the result is an active one -- the cooling system stops working, chain reactions continue, meltdowns, etc.

In nuclear fusion, if something goes wrong, the result is passive -- the magnetic field shuts off, the plasma stops being formed, and basically just dissipates. Then there's simply no energy being generated.

The main problems are simply we haven't quite figured out how to design the reactors efficiently enough yet in order to make them worth running. There are multiple projects around the world being worked on simultaneously, with great international cooperation -- the EU, the US, the UK, China, Japan, South Korea, Canada are all working together on this, trying different designs, funding newer and larger scale reactors. This is THE big thing for the future of energy, and all the major powers seem to recognize it.

[Novus America]

No, because we can save deserts and other environments. We can solve the problem without covering millions and millions of acres in mirrors.

How?

And even if you use metal instead of glass, there is still a huge environmental cost.
You are still using limited materials.

Right, but they don't have to be glass OR metal. For the kind of mirror you put in your bathroom, yeah, you need something flat to make reflective. But for the purposes of solar collectors, it only needs to be rigid.

Yes all power sources require materials. Some require less than other though.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/scie ... 55997.html

Didn't they vouch for its safety before Fukushima too? Kind of puts a hole in their credibility doesn't it?

Also concentrated solar is not maintenance free. The reflectors must be continually cleaned and replaced.

That's why I said "low maintenance," not "no maintenance."

How? Using the source that uses the least amount of land and materials per energy outputted.

You cannot just use any rigid material, it has to be highly reflective.

Fukushima does not disprove that nuclear is the least resource intensive. It does not change the fact that nuclear still has and extremely low death print.

And only applies to one reactor design which we do not have to use.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

You cannot just use any rigid material, it has to be highly reflective.

Did you not see the video showing how to attach reflective foil to other, more rigid materials? Or did I link to the wrong one?

Fukushima does not disprove that nuclear is the least resource intensive.

Not conclusively, but it does give us more reason than before to doubt the pro-nuclear side, who acted like Chernobyl was just a "Russia" problem and not a "human nature tends not to admit when it's doing something dangerous" problem. It leaves behind the question of what else they could be lying about.

It does not change the fact that nuclear still has and extremely low death print.

Again, partly because we've already stacked the deck against nuclear and rightfully so. In Canada it's mostly hydroelectric dams, and when those break, dealing with the floods will be reasonably straightforward because we evolved to comprehend the nature of water... at least the gist of it. We did not evolve to comprehend the nature of nuclear energy.

And only applies to one reactor design which we do not have to use.

Again, if they thought the issue with Chernobyl was "Russia," and Fukushima discredited it, how do we know the claim that the issue was reactor design isn't also false?

[Novus America]

You cannot just use any rigid material, it has to be highly reflective.

Did you not see the video showing how to attach reflective foil to other, more rigid materials? Or did I link to the wrong one?

Fukushima does not disprove that nuclear is the least resource intensive.

Not conclusively, but it does give us more reason than before to doubt the pro-nuclear side, who acted like Chernobyl was just a "Russia" problem and not a "human nature tends not to admit when it's doing something dangerous" problem. It leaves behind the question of what else they could be lying about.

It does not change the fact that nuclear still has and extremely low death print.

Again, partly because we've already stacked the deck against nuclear and rightfully so. In Canada it's mostly hydroelectric dams, and when those break, dealing with the floods will be reasonably straightforward because we evolved to comprehend the nature of water... at least the gist of it. We did not evolve to comprehend the nature of nuclear energy.

And only applies to one reactor design which we do not have to use.

Again, if they thought the issue with Chernobyl was "Russia," and Fukushima discredited it, how do we know the claim that the issue was reactor design isn't also false?

Umm reflective foil is made from metal. You are going to use massive amounts of land.
Also 61% of Ontario’s power is nuclear. Works great.

Simply repeating ”but Fukushima” (which in the grand scheme of things was not that devastating anyways) does not change anything.

Yes a reactor with a positive void coefficient, insufficient containment structure when struck by an absurdly huge tsunami will have problems. Okay.

So we do not repeat that.

Simple fact is nuclear produces the most power with the least resources used, and in fact, eve including Fukushima and Chernobyl has a extremely low death print. It has the lowest environmental footprint and lowest death print of the recorded sources.