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

[Vascottozer]

I'd say nuclear (specifically thorium) is the way. Sure it's gone wrong before but it's still a low chance.

[Azadliq]

I think that I prefer Nuclear overall, but I also believe that solar and hydroelectric power should be included where possible.

Nuclear is, in my opinion, the most reliable way to produce power en masse. It should be the primary power source for a clean economy.

Hydroelectric power plants, such as Hoover Dam, should be built where they are viable. It is, after all, a clean source of energy that we have no reason not to make use of. However, this isnt viable in all parts of the world, and thus cannot be our primary power source.

Solar panels, in my opinion, have a place as personal power units and as backup power units, but I dont believe that its practical to build them en masse because they only work for half the day. That being said, as they become cheaper, we could consider including them in humanitarian packages to countries where consistent power may be a luxury. Power for part of the day is better than not having power at all.

[Dazchan]

Solar panels, in my opinion, have a place as personal power units and as backup power units, but I dont believe that its practical to build them en masse because they only work for half the day. That being said, as they become cheaper, we could consider including them in humanitarian packages to countries where consistent power may be a luxury. Power for part of the day is better than not having power at all.

If only there was some means of storing electricity generated during the daytime for later use.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Three mile island did not kill anyone, or do any real harm outside the containment structure. All you really need is a good containment structure. Something all US reactors require, and that Chernobyl and Fukushima did not have. Fukushima was also an old design that would not be built today.

And passive relief valves to vent excessive pressure like France requires can be used too.
Or you just a have a negative void coefficient and melt down is literally impossible.

And even including Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear is still safer per kilowatt than the other main sources.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I'd rather live next door to a nuclear plant than even 50 miles downwind from a coal plant or oil refinery.

Anyone have statistics on property values near power plants, before and after they were built? It's all well and good to say where one would rather live, but as always, actions speak louder than words...

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

We never tried it because it is not practical.
You would have to build absurdly huge barges, deal with the fact the ocean moves, that seawater and salt ruins smooth surfaces, etc.

Or you could tie a bunch of floatation devices to the shore and put the mirrors on stands that are on the floatation devices. As long as they're well above the wave height they should be fine.

“Unused” space, even if you are not using it for human development still has use. Environmental conservation is a thing, which requires efficient use of resources to avoid excessive footprint from mining, etc.

Uranium mining causes environmental harm too.

And you admit you cannot solve the material usage problem.

Not completely. But we can take it one step at a time.

The focus on thermal!solar is primarily for how simple it is to construct and the ability to use unskilled labour displaced by immigration and automation. Small scale hydroelectricity, waterwheels, and wind turbines all have a role to play too.

[The New California Republic]

While renewables are good, I think that new nuclear power stations or expanding existing ones will still be needed to wean ourselves off of fossil fuel power stations.

[Azadliq]

Solar panels, in my opinion, have a place as personal power units and as backup power units, but I dont believe that its practical to build them en masse because they only work for half the day. That being said, as they become cheaper, we could consider including them in humanitarian packages to countries where consistent power may be a luxury. Power for part of the day is better than not having power at all.

If only there was some means of storing electricity generated during the daytime for later use.

This coming week, my weather app says that it's going to be snowing almost every day and overcast on the days that it's not snowing. So, let's say I had solar panels. Do you honestly expect me to go out and buy enough batteries to store a week's worth of power? And to climb up onto my roof and shovel the snow off of the panels every day? I can't afford to buy that many batteries and I'm not about to risk falling off my roof to clean off solar panels.

Let's say my city was powered by solar panels. There are approximately 200,000 people here. So, the city would have to store a weeks worth of power for all 200,000 people, and their businesses, and government facilities, and other structures as necessary. My city can't afford to buy those batteries or to pay people to clean off the solar panels-- they can't even afford to build a shelter for the homeless.

Buying batteries to store power works for those who can afford it. But it's a solution that only works for middle and upper class folk. There needs to be a more reliable method of producing power, and in my opinion nuclear power is the way to go.

[Genivaria]

Nuclear power will save us all if we let it.

[Azadliq]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I'd rather live next door to a nuclear plant than even 50 miles downwind from a coal plant or oil refinery.

Anyone have statistics on property values near power plants, before and after they were built? It's all well and good to say where one would rather live, but as always, actions speak louder than words...

This journal from 2018 has a research article entitled "Property values and tax rates near spent nuclear fuel storage". I'm not going to purchase the PDF to read the article, but the abstract says "We confirm earlier research that fails to find an impact on property values of proximity to a nuclear power site."

[Thermodolia]

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.

France has the highest reliance on nuclear power and they haven’t had any deaths or Chernobyl style accidents

[Thermodolia]

Anyone have statistics on property values near power plants, before and after they were built? It's all well and good to say where one would rather live, but as always, actions speak louder than words...

This journal from 2018 has a research article entitled "Property values and tax rates near spent nuclear fuel storage". I'm not going to purchase the PDF to read the article, but the abstract says "We confirm earlier research that fails to find an impact on property values of proximity to a nuclear power site."

Probably because unlike coal and oil well contained nuclear waste doesn’t cause health hazards and putts off less radioactive material than coal and oil

[The New California Republic]

Anyone have statistics on property values near power plants, before and after they were built? It's all well and good to say where one would rather live, but as always, actions speak louder than words...

This journal from 2018 has a research article entitled "Property values and tax rates near spent nuclear fuel storage". I'm not going to purchase the PDF to read the article, but the abstract says "We confirm earlier research that fails to find an impact on property values of proximity to a nuclear power site."

Spent fuel storage sites tend to be placed far away from heavily populated areas, so the issue of property values is negligible anyway.

[Samadhi]

This journal from 2018 has a research article entitled "Property values and tax rates near spent nuclear fuel storage". I'm not going to purchase the PDF to read the article, but the abstract says "We confirm earlier research that fails to find an impact on property values of proximity to a nuclear power site."

Spent fuel storage sites tend to be placed far away from heavily populated areas, so the issue of property values is negligible anyway.

As our understanding of climate dynamics grows I've often thought we're going to discover areas where it's going to be critical that humans don't live or build there.

Banging nuclear waste in these areas seems like the best deterant.

[The New California Republic]

Spent fuel storage sites tend to be placed far away from heavily populated areas, so the issue of property values is negligible anyway.

As our understanding of climate dynamics grows I've often thought we're going to discover areas where it's going to be critical that humans don't live or build there.

Banging nuclear waste in these areas seems like the best deterant.

I don't think that you understand how the storage of spent fuel works.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Spent fuel storage sites tend to be placed far away from heavily populated areas, so the issue of property values is negligible anyway.

As our understanding of climate dynamics grows I've often thought we're going to discover areas where it's going to be critical that humans don't live or build there.

Banging nuclear waste in these areas seems like the best deterant.

Well you're the first Greenie For More Mutation that I've ever met.

[Samadhi]

As our understanding of climate dynamics grows I've often thought we're going to discover areas where it's going to be critical that humans don't live or build there.

Banging nuclear waste in these areas seems like the best deterant.

I don't think that you understand how the storage of spent fuel works.

Yeah you could probably bet money on it.

[The New California Republic]

As our understanding of climate dynamics grows I've often thought we're going to discover areas where it's going to be critical that humans don't live or build there.

Banging nuclear waste in these areas seems like the best deterant.

Well you're the first Greenie For More Mutation that I've ever met.

Yeah it's a bit weird that someone would advocate dumping spent fuel in areas with the intent of saving said areas.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

As our understanding of climate dynamics grows I've often thought we're going to discover areas where it's going to be critical that humans don't live or build there.

Banging nuclear waste in these areas seems like the best deterant.

I don't think that you understand how the storage of spent fuel works.

It has to be secure for one thing. Terrorists getting their hands on high- or even medium-level waste would be disastrous.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Nuclear is pretty bueno.

[Samadhi]

I don't think that you understand how the storage of spent fuel works.

It has to be secure for one thing. Terrorists getting their hands on high- or even medium-level waste would be disastrous.

Or you know the absolute opposite. Have it ready to go bang off disturbed by people.

[The New California Republic]

It has to be secure for one thing. Terrorists getting their hands on high- or even medium-level waste would be disastrous.

Or you know the absolute opposite. Have it ready to go bang off disturbed by people.

...

...so create a bunch of dirty bombs in environments that you are trying to save? The fuck?

[Samadhi]

Or you know the absolute opposite. Have it ready to go bang off disturbed by people.

...

...so create a bunch of dirty bombs in environments that you are trying to save? The fuck?

I dunno man, I'm just like spit balling here.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

It has to be secure for one thing. Terrorists getting their hands on high- or even medium-level waste would be disastrous.

Or you know the absolute opposite. Have it ready to go bang off disturbed by people.

Load it up with explosives then. With a sign "possums keep out" so it doesn't get accidentally triggered.

[Neu California]

My main criticism of nuclear is cost and inability to be built on time and on budget, which, per industry reports, is making it too expensive to compete with wind and solar.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ener ... SKBN1W909J

And it's not regulation that's causing the problems

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmaho ... 57d3145d1a

As to thorium, I'm skeptical. The claims of how amazing it will be and how much better than uranium it is and how it's the best power source instantly trigger my "sounds too good to be true" sense. Sources are lacking (and older, as in 2014 older, based on a cursory Google search). One specific criticism I have is about how thorium is everywhere. This would be a great plus if (IF) uranium itself was a major cost in nuclear power production.

Thing is, it's not. to my understanding, uranium is cheap, relatively speaking, which is part of why opex (operating expenditure, running it) for nuclear is so low. The problem is, as my sources above, and in the op, say, capex (capital expedinture, building it) which needs to be recouped for economic viability (they're not going to build it unless they can make money off of it) which I'm not convinced thorium would fix.

[Thermodolia]

My main criticism of nuclear is cost and inability to be built on time and on budget, which, per industry reports, is making it too expensive to compete with wind and solar.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ener ... SKBN1W909J

And it's not regulation that's causing the problems

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmaho ... 57d3145d1a

As to thorium, I'm skeptical. The claims of how amazing it will be and how much better than uranium it is and how it's the best power source instantly trigger my "sounds too good to be true" sense. Sources are lacking (and older, as in 2014 older, based on a cursory Google search). One specific criticism I have is about how thorium is everywhere. This would be a great plus if (IF) uranium itself was a major cost in nuclear power production.

Thing is, it's not. to my understanding, uranium is cheap, relatively speaking, which is part of why opex (operating expenditure, running it) for nuclear is so low. The problem is, as my sources above, and in the op, say, capex (capital expedinture, building it) which needs to be recouped for economic viability (they're not going to build it unless they can make money off of it) which I'm not convinced thorium would fix.

Which is why you nationalize the power industry. When there’s no need for financial gain, economic viability doesn’t really matter. Especially when the government is funding it