pull down to refresh
30 sats \ 3 replies \ @cozy 11 Jul 2022 \ on: Bitcoin Miners Shut Off Rigs as Texas Power Grid Nears Brink | Bloomberg bitcoin
Very interesting. Without nuclear no grid will be stable long term. It's the greenest, cleanest, most dense form of energy we know how to use--and we're only getting better at using it. As for the weather, it's going to be extremes, which is unsustainable, unpredictable. So it can never be just renewables, alone.
With that in mind, there's lots to be optimistic about, just check the nuclear news on Google.
Nuclear is not clean. At least by the way I define it. Or I, and those in the vicinity of Chernobyl, Fukushima, and Three Mile Island would define "clean".
Nuclear is not cheap. At least by the way I define it. Which includes end-of-service decommissioning;. Are you going to store the spent fuel on-site? That's very costly. And potentially, not safe.) and such. Add those in and nuclear doesn't seem such a good deal, in cost per kWh. And that is even before the potential cost of catastrophic failure. We've not yet seen a nuke power plant being the target of a car bomb or a (kinetic) missile attack. I suspect that happens once, somewhere in the world, and that'll change opinion worldwide about having a ticking time bomb anywhere near your back yard.
Now if you are talking about further research coming out with better, cheaper nuclear power generation technology, I support that. Like Liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR), for example.
Geothermal is an energy source that is the greenest, cleanest form of renewable energy. I'ld like to see serious attention paid to that, in addition to research on safer nuclear methods.
Same for energy storage to offset the peaks. This could come from a number of bulk-scale energy storage methods, like pumped hydro, and other gravity energy storage (e.g., advanced rail energy storage), etc. It would be prudent doing further research and development in these areas.
Until then, ..., we'll be reliant on fossils (coal, natural gas, diesel), hydroelectric, wind and solar.
reply
Those were indeed disasters. But fear of disaster used as justification for preventing progress (eg regulation and moratorium on nuclear energy, like happened in Germany and has lead to the situation in Ukraine) is extremely myopic thinking. Besides fusion (deuterium and tritium), Uranium has the second highest energy density of substances we know of, and we already know how to use it. How energy dense is it? Check this out, a picture of how much Uranium is needed to produce the equivalent energy of 4,400 gallons of petrol.
Geothermal energy is not accessible everywhere (eg. volcanos are not everywhere, and they are also not without danger). All renewable energy sources are sporadic and unpredictable, and therefore dangerous to stability of an energy grid. There is no one size fits all, of course. And a variety is the spice of live. But, nuclear IS getting safer, and supporting that progress, for example by buying stock and supporting research and outreach, is the way to go.
I see a lot of misconceptions that organizations like Greenpeace have been pushing since the 70s still pushed today. These are mostly mesofacts.
For a theoretical basis of the nuclear argument, this is a great analysis of a chapter from a book I'd highly recommend: Unsustainable
I also recommend checking out Meredith Angwin and her book 'Shorting the Grid'
reply
Nuclear is not clean. At least by the way I define it. Or I, and those in the vicinity of Chernobyl, Fukushima, and Three Mile Island would define "clean".
Nuclear is not cheap. At least by the way I define it. Which includes end-of-service decommissioning;. Are you going to store the spent fuel on-site? That's very costly. And potentially, not safe.) and such. Add those in and nuclear doesn't seem such a good deal, in cost per kWh. And that is even before the potential cost of catastrophic failure. We've not yet seen a nuke power plant being the target of a car bomb or a (kinetic) missile attack. I suspect that happens once, somewhere in the world, and that'll change opinion worldwide about having a ticking time bomb anywhere near your back yard.
Now if you are talking about further research coming out with better, cheaper nuclear power generation technology, I support that. Like Liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR), for example.
Geothermal is an energy source that is the greenest, cleanest form of renewable energy. I'ld like to see serious attention paid to that, in addition to research on safer nuclear methods.
Until then, ..., we'll be reliant on fossils (coal, natural gas, diesel), hydroelectric, wind and solar.
reply