There is really no need for the costs to be as high as they are. Modern reactors are very safe in comparison to even fukushima. Fukushima used an active process to shut down the fission process instead of a passive one. So when the tsunami knocked out the generators, it could no longer do its job.
Fukushima was nearly 40 year old technology too.
There's also a huge plus in that, when/if we figure out fusion, all that radioactive waste can be used as a potential fuel source.
This is something we need to figure out. Solar power manufacturing isn't super green and creates a lot of waste and greenhouse gasses too... it's not a great solution for large scale deployment tbh. Maybe for a smaller country but I don't know about something as large as even just Texas.
...what? Fusion needs very light fuel. I'm not aware of any fission reactions that spit out hydrogen or helium in usable quantity. Anything heavier than iron is useless for fusion, and you want much closer to hydrogen than iron for peak efficiency.
Regardless of the need for costs to be high,they are. And it isn't really regulation doing that. It's contractor fuck ups.
And loosening regulation and cost is how we *got* Fukashima. There was another closer reactor that did fine. But Fukashima cut costs..
There are some theoretical hybrid reactors that can recycle fission waste into a fusion reaction supposedly.
And I'm not saying "loosen regulations" I'm saying "make better regulations that apply to reactors not built in 1950 and 1960" (like fuku that was built in the 60s). We already have the passive meltdown systems, why do we need regulations on active meltdown designs? Build better reactors.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Current estimates put the rebuilding of the US electric grid at 48 trillion over ten years so like I'm not sure why cost effectiveness for nuclear is an issue
Also unless a plan also includes stuff for electric storage it will be impossible to be fully 100% renewable
Because bang for your buck is even more important and that scale. Though TBH I think that number was for replacing a lot of power lines and such too. A lot of thr
There is really no need for the costs to be as high as they are. Modern reactors are very safe in comparison to even fukushima. Fukushima used an active process to shut down the fission process instead of a passive one. So when the tsunami knocked out the generators, it could no longer do its job.
Fukushima was nearly 40 year old technology too.
There's also a huge plus in that, when/if we figure out fusion, all that radioactive waste can be used as a potential fuel source.
This is something we need to figure out. Solar power manufacturing isn't super green and creates a lot of waste and greenhouse gasses too... it's not a great solution for large scale deployment tbh. Maybe for a smaller country but I don't know about something as large as even just Texas.
...what? Fusion needs very light fuel. I'm not aware of any fission reactions that spit out hydrogen or helium in usable quantity. Anything heavier than iron is useless for fusion, and you want much closer to hydrogen than iron for peak efficiency.
Regardless of the need for costs to be high,they are. And it isn't really regulation doing that. It's contractor fuck ups.
And loosening regulation and cost is how we *got* Fukashima. There was another closer reactor that did fine. But Fukashima cut costs..
There are some theoretical hybrid reactors that can recycle fission waste into a fusion reaction supposedly.
And I'm not saying "loosen regulations" I'm saying "make better regulations that apply to reactors not built in 1950 and 1960" (like fuku that was built in the 60s). We already have the passive meltdown systems, why do we need regulations on active meltdown designs? Build better reactors.
I'm pretty sure that theory is bunk. You start getting into perpetual motion machine territory there.
There is really no need for the costs to be as high as they are. Modern reactors are very safe in comparison to even fukushima. Fukushima used an active process to shut down the fission process instead of a passive one. So when the tsunami knocked out the generators, it could no longer do its job.
Fukushima was nearly 40 year old technology too.
There's also a huge plus in that, when/if we figure out fusion, all that radioactive waste can be used as a potential fuel source.
This is something we need to figure out. Solar power manufacturing isn't super green and creates a lot of waste and greenhouse gasses too... it's not a great solution for large scale deployment tbh. Maybe for a smaller country but I don't know about something as large as even just Texas.
...what? Fusion needs very light fuel. I'm not aware of any fission reactions that spit out hydrogen or helium in usable quantity. Anything heavier than iron is useless for fusion, and you want much closer to hydrogen than iron for peak efficiency.
Regardless of the need for costs to be high,they are. And it isn't really regulation doing that. It's contractor fuck ups.
And loosening regulation and cost is how we *got* Fukashima. There was another closer reactor that did fine. But Fukashima cut costs..
There are some theoretical hybrid reactors that can recycle fission waste into a fusion reaction supposedly.
And I'm not saying "loosen regulations" I'm saying "make better regulations that apply to reactors not built in 1950 and 1960" (like fuku that was built in the 60s). We already have the passive meltdown systems, why do we need regulations on active meltdown designs? Build better reactors.
Those hybrid reactors require separate fuel, they use a fission reactor to generate neutrons which trigger a fusion reaction, the same way a thermonuclear bomb does, not to generate the fuel itself.
Hevach on
0
Options
38thDoelets never be stupid againwait lets always be stupid foreverRegistered Userregular
Wasn't Fukushima fine until it got struck with a Tsunami? We have a lot of country that isn't vulnerable to Tsunamis.
I know I'm being a bit obtuse when I say it but who cares how much it costs.
Wars cost more. Millions of people dying costs more. *Insert massive human suffering cause here* costs more.
Atomic bombs, tanks, planes, ships all cost a lot of money too but we certainly needed them at the time...
Current estimates put the rebuilding of the US electric grid at 48 trillion over ten years so like I'm not sure why cost effectiveness for nuclear is an issue
Also unless a plan also includes stuff for electric storage it will be impossible to be fully 100% renewable
Because bang for your buck is even more important and that scale. Though TBH I think that number was for replacing a lot of power lines and such too. A lot of thr
And nuclear power is still cheaper even with the upfront costs so... ?
The thing with solar and wind is I never see a solution other than coal or oil for "what happens at night or when there's no wind?"
Are we going to build giant lithium batteries? The ecological and pollution costs for that is massive. Is there even enough lithium on the planet for building batteries to service the entirety of the US? Legit question I'm not trying to fear monger there or be a dick about it.
There's some interesting developments with carbon batteries but those are at least 10 years, probably much longer.
Build coal plant for night time? Well if we're worried about radioactive waste and pollution that seems like a fools errand and counter-productive.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Wasn't Fukushima fine until it got struck with a Tsunami? We have a lot of country that isn't vulnerable to Tsunamis.
Yup.
Their meltdown control(edit) was "active" meaning it required power to shut down the reaction. So their backup generators kicked on and did their job... until the tsunami hit the generators and took them offline.
You don't need active meltdown control, there are passive styles that work just fine.
It's a moot point, it was a 40 year old nuclear power plant that needed to be updated. It was hardly because anyone cut corners, just not a great design and the concept has progressed considerably in those 40 years. There's still plenty of nuclear techs, engineers, and chemists being trained and taught all over the US.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
The thing with solar and wind is I never see a solution other than coal or oil for "what happens at night or when there's no wind?"
Are we going to build giant lithium batteries? The ecological and pollution costs for that is massive. Is there even enough lithium on the planet for building batteries to service the entirety of the US? Legit question I'm not trying to fear monger there or be a dick about it.
There's some interesting developments with carbon batteries but those are at least 10 years, probably much longer.
Build coal plant for night time? Well if we're worried about radioactive waste and pollution that seems like a fools errand and counter-productive.
I've seen a few Tom Scott videos on massive physical batteries. Basically, pump water up a hill, or compress air in a cave, when you've got a surplus of solar or wind, and then release it at night.
I saw something about kinetic batteries, couldn't you do that or is it just way too inefficient even if its' massively scale-able.
ie use excess day energy to roll a boulder up a hill, drop the bolder at night to spin a generator.
A flywheel? They're great for low throughput systems but not a power grid. But I might be wrong about their application in things outside of like a mill or something.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
I tentatively support nuclear but I really don't know anything about it or its logistical/infrastructural scaling possibilities. If phoenix-D is saying it's untenable (even with the lengths of mobilization the Green New Deal, say, would aspire to) then I defer to that judgment
I don't know that it's untenable in general, but the US industry seems bad at their jobs.
One thing that people under 40 have trouble understanding about nuclear power in the U.S. is the extent to which American capitalists being American capitalists ruined the reputation of nuclear power through cost-cutting, incompetence, abusive labor practices, whistleblower coercion and possibly even outright murder, and multiple serious accidents, including the Three Mile Island near meltdown. There's a reason nuclear's reputation crashed between the 1960s and 1980s that goes beyond leftist fear-mongering.
I saw something about kinetic batteries, couldn't you do that or is it just way too inefficient even if its' massively scale-able.
ie use excess day energy to roll a boulder up a hill, drop the bolder at night to spin a generator.
Hydro is a common example.
Pump water to reservoir, use hydroelectric when your solar/wind drops off.
The crap thing is that's also massively expensive and a total shitshow if something fails.
Unless we manage some kind of planet wide grid system we're gonna need something that generates significant power on demand at all times.
Maybe battery tech will come along and save us but I doubt it will in time.
Current estimates put the rebuilding of the US electric grid at 48 trillion over ten years so like I'm not sure why cost effectiveness for nuclear is an issue
Also unless a plan also includes stuff for electric storage it will be impossible to be fully 100% renewable
Because bang for your buck is even more important and that scale. Though TBH I think that number was for replacing a lot of power lines and such too. A lot of thr
And nuclear power is still cheaper even with the upfront costs so... ?
The thing with solar and wind is I never see a solution other than coal or oil for "what happens at night or when there's no wind?"
Are we going to build giant lithium batteries? The ecological and pollution costs for that is massive. Is there even enough lithium on the planet for building batteries to service the entirety of the US? Legit question I'm not trying to fear monger there or be a dick about it.
There's some interesting developments with carbon batteries but those are at least 10 years, probably much longer.
Build coal plant for night time? Well if we're worried about radioactive waste and pollution that seems like a fools errand and counter-productive.
Nuclear power is not cheaper.
For night you either build a mix of renewables or use a storage technique. Solar thermal instead of photovoltaic for example.
The meltdown in Japan was directly because the plant operator cut corners. Specifically they did not build a large enough sea wall. Another plant did, took a bigger hit, and was fine.
Current estimates put the rebuilding of the US electric grid at 48 trillion over ten years so like I'm not sure why cost effectiveness for nuclear is an issue
Also unless a plan also includes stuff for electric storage it will be impossible to be fully 100% renewable
Because bang for your buck is even more important and that scale. Though TBH I think that number was for replacing a lot of power lines and such too. A lot of thr
There is really no need for the costs to be as high as they are. Modern reactors are very safe in comparison to even fukushima. Fukushima used an active process to shut down the fission process instead of a passive one. So when the tsunami knocked out the generators, it could no longer do its job.
Fukushima was nearly 40 year old technology too.
There's also a huge plus in that, when/if we figure out fusion, all that radioactive waste can be used as a potential fuel source.
This is something we need to figure out. Solar power manufacturing isn't super green and creates a lot of waste and greenhouse gasses too... it's not a great solution for large scale deployment tbh. Maybe for a smaller country but I don't know about something as large as even just Texas.
...what? Fusion needs very light fuel. I'm not aware of any fission reactions that spit out hydrogen or helium in usable quantity. Anything heavier than iron is useless for fusion, and you want much closer to hydrogen than iron for peak efficiency.
Regardless of the need for costs to be high,they are. And it isn't really regulation doing that. It's contractor fuck ups.
And loosening regulation and cost is how we *got* Fukashima. There was another closer reactor that did fine. But Fukashima cut costs..
There are some theoretical hybrid reactors that can recycle fission waste into a fusion reaction supposedly.
And I'm not saying "loosen regulations" I'm saying "make better regulations that apply to reactors not built in 1950 and 1960" (like fuku that was built in the 60s). We already have the passive meltdown systems, why do we need regulations on active meltdown designs? Build better reactors.
I'm pretty sure that theory is bunk. You start getting into perpetual motion machine territory there.
Yeah, there’s a couple of different waste products.
There are a set of elements that are useful for fission. In theory this set includes anything heavier than iron but practically is limited to elements in the actinide series - atomic number 89 and above. There is a set of elements that are useful for fusion - agian this in theory would include anything below iron but is practically limited to probably the first 4 or 5 elements on the chart.
Fission works by converting heavy elements into lighter ones. Most fission we do now focuses on U-235, which is a minority of most fuel sources, so most waste is heavy elements that just aren’t particularly good at fission but are still viable fuel sources, and a smaller portion is actual fission products which are lighter elements, but ones that are still heavier than iron.
So as an analogy, what we are doing now is equivalent to taking a barrel of crude oil, refining the gasoline, and taking the rest and dumping it in the ground as waste. We could with effort take out the diesel and kerosene and burn that too, but we will never be able to burn ashes and co2.
Edit: As said above though you can definitely use neutrons/alpha particles/etc from fusion reactions help to power fission reactions and vise versa, but that isn’t really using waste as those particles would just be flying off into space as radiation anyway.
All batteries have inefficiencies, yes. I know water pumping has been looked at. Australia bought some giant battery farms for their grid last year I know.
There is still wind at night, last I checked (less of it, but). Rivers still run, the tides still come in and out...
Current estimates put the rebuilding of the US electric grid at 48 trillion over ten years so like I'm not sure why cost effectiveness for nuclear is an issue
Also unless a plan also includes stuff for electric storage it will be impossible to be fully 100% renewable
Because bang for your buck is even more important and that scale. Though TBH I think that number was for replacing a lot of power lines and such too. A lot of thr
And nuclear power is still cheaper even with the upfront costs so... ?
The thing with solar and wind is I never see a solution other than coal or oil for "what happens at night or when there's no wind?"
Are we going to build giant lithium batteries? The ecological and pollution costs for that is massive. Is there even enough lithium on the planet for building batteries to service the entirety of the US? Legit question I'm not trying to fear monger there or be a dick about it.
There's some interesting developments with carbon batteries but those are at least 10 years, probably much longer.
Build coal plant for night time? Well if we're worried about radioactive waste and pollution that seems like a fools errand and counter-productive.
Nuclear power is not cheaper.
For night you either build a mix of renewables or use a storage technique. Solar thermal instead of photovoltaic for example.
The meltdown in Japan was directly because the plant operator cut corners. Specifically they did not build a large enough sea wall. Another plant did, took a bigger hit, and was fine.
I am not sure what "mix of renewables" and/or storage technique is feasible at the scale it's needed is?
Nuclear power is a specific, known, solution.
I am legit curious what the specific other solutions are and "renewables" is vague.
Tides are an obvious answer, its too bad ocean water is basically death for anything that moves regularly.
yeah salt water sucks.
I think solar/wind + hydro reservoirs is a "simple" solution but it's just as costly from what I've read and not feasible everywhere.
Current estimates put the rebuilding of the US electric grid at 48 trillion over ten years so like I'm not sure why cost effectiveness for nuclear is an issue
Also unless a plan also includes stuff for electric storage it will be impossible to be fully 100% renewable
Because bang for your buck is even more important and that scale. Though TBH I think that number was for replacing a lot of power lines and such too. A lot of thr
And nuclear power is still cheaper even with the upfront costs so... ?
The thing with solar and wind is I never see a solution other than coal or oil for "what happens at night or when there's no wind?"
Are we going to build giant lithium batteries? The ecological and pollution costs for that is massive. Is there even enough lithium on the planet for building batteries to service the entirety of the US? Legit question I'm not trying to fear monger there or be a dick about it.
There's some interesting developments with carbon batteries but those are at least 10 years, probably much longer.
Build coal plant for night time? Well if we're worried about radioactive waste and pollution that seems like a fools errand and counter-productive.
Nuclear power is not cheaper.
For night you either build a mix of renewables or use a storage technique. Solar thermal instead of photovoltaic for example.
The meltdown in Japan was directly because the plant operator cut corners. Specifically they did not build a large enough sea wall. Another plant did, took a bigger hit, and was fine.
The bulk of the cost in this case is loans and associated regulatory expenses.
Also you can build a wall as high as you want, if a plane falls on your fucking building your active meltdown systems aren't going to work regardless just because the wall over here is 10 feet taller than the wall over there. This is a dumb point and you seem dead set on "fuck nuclear" so whatever I guess.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Current estimates put the rebuilding of the US electric grid at 48 trillion over ten years so like I'm not sure why cost effectiveness for nuclear is an issue
Also unless a plan also includes stuff for electric storage it will be impossible to be fully 100% renewable
Because bang for your buck is even more important and that scale. Though TBH I think that number was for replacing a lot of power lines and such too. A lot of thr
And nuclear power is still cheaper even with the upfront costs so... ?
The thing with solar and wind is I never see a solution other than coal or oil for "what happens at night or when there's no wind?"
Are we going to build giant lithium batteries? The ecological and pollution costs for that is massive. Is there even enough lithium on the planet for building batteries to service the entirety of the US? Legit question I'm not trying to fear monger there or be a dick about it.
There's some interesting developments with carbon batteries but those are at least 10 years, probably much longer.
Build coal plant for night time? Well if we're worried about radioactive waste and pollution that seems like a fools errand and counter-productive.
Nuclear power is not cheaper.
For night you either build a mix of renewables or use a storage technique. Solar thermal instead of photovoltaic for example.
The meltdown in Japan was directly because the plant operator cut corners. Specifically they did not build a large enough sea wall. Another plant did, took a bigger hit, and was fine.
I am not sure what "mix of renewables" and/or storage technique is feasible at the scale it's needed is?
Nuclear power is a specific, known, solution.
I am legit curious what the specific other solutions are and "renewables" is vague.
Has to be vague because what works depends on where you're building it. Hawaii can make really good use of geothermal, wind and all types of solar for example. Meanwhile hydro storage and generation is difficult or impossible. On the other hand, Seattle still gets a surprisingly useful amount of solar but probably not enough for grid scale. But it has plenty of hydro. Etc.
I'm rabidly pro-nuclear but I think it'll take a mix and the public sentiment is wholly with renewable's right now.
My problem starts when places who have nuclear or experience with nuclear choose something like natural gas or coal because renewables aren't ready in that place and nuclear is politically untennable.
I'm rabidly pro-nuclear but I think it'll take a mix and the public sentiment is wholly with renewable's right now.
My problem starts when places who have nuclear or experience with nuclear choose something like natural gas or coal because renewables aren't ready in that place and nuclear is politically untennable.
Yeah that attitude is dumb. Especially given coal releasing more radioactive material on average than nuclear.
Probably a side effect of the shit aridhol was talking about.
She's a younger millennial IIRC, so it's likely she either doesn't have a lot of knowledge of nuclear power, or thinks it's not a good thing because of meltdowns.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Probably a side effect of the shit aridhol was talking about.
She's a younger millennial IIRC, so it's likely she either doesn't have a lot of knowledge of nuclear power, or thinks it's not a good thing because of meltdowns.
She seems pretty smart so this would likely be that her constituents have those concerns.
I don't envy any politician trying to argue for nuclear power in this climate.
People can't even get on board fucking vaccines at this point.
Probably a side effect of the shit aridhol was talking about.
She's a younger millennial IIRC, so it's likely she either doesn't have a lot of knowledge of nuclear power, or thinks it's not a good thing because of meltdowns.
She seems pretty smart so this would likely be that her constituents have those concerns.
I don't envy any politician trying to argue for nuclear power in this climate.
People can't even get on board fucking vaccines at this point.
Oddly... the older conservatives in my area wonder why there aren't more nuclear plants (we have three-ish reactors in Oswego NY).
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Probably a side effect of the shit aridhol was talking about.
She's a younger millennial IIRC, so it's likely she either doesn't have a lot of knowledge of nuclear power, or thinks it's not a good thing because of meltdowns.
She seems pretty smart so this would likely be that her constituents have those concerns.
I don't envy any politician trying to argue for nuclear power in this climate.
People can't even get on board fucking vaccines at this point.
Oddly... the older conservatives in my area wonder why there aren't more nuclear plants (we have three-ish reactors in Oswego NY).
Gonna hazard a guess those people aren't AOC fans.
Probably a side effect of the shit aridhol was talking about.
She's a younger millennial IIRC, so it's likely she either doesn't have a lot of knowledge of nuclear power, or thinks it's not a good thing because of meltdowns.
She seems pretty smart so this would likely be that her constituents have those concerns.
I don't envy any politician trying to argue for nuclear power in this climate.
People can't even get on board fucking vaccines at this point.
Oddly... the older conservatives in my area wonder why there aren't more nuclear plants (we have three-ish reactors in Oswego NY).
Gonna hazard a guess those people aren't AOC fans.
true but also completely the opposite of people I'd expect to be looking for nuclear power too
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
There is really no need for the costs to be as high as they are. Modern reactors are very safe in comparison to even fukushima. Fukushima used an active process to shut down the fission process instead of a passive one. So when the tsunami knocked out the generators, it could no longer do its job.
This is a common misconception. Fukushima was no longer fissioning when it had meltdowns. It was the decay heat of the fuel, and the inability to remove that heat, which caused meltdowns. Any reactor will have decay heat for days after reactor shutdown. If that heat is not removed, any reactor will meltdown. This decay is not fission, but it does happen because of fission products.
When you mention "passive process" you are probably thinking of designs that use natural convection. These reactors can keep cooling the core during the decay heat period without the use of electrical pumps.
Current estimates put the rebuilding of the US electric grid at 48 trillion over ten years so like I'm not sure why cost effectiveness for nuclear is an issue
Also unless a plan also includes stuff for electric storage it will be impossible to be fully 100% renewable
Because bang for your buck is even more important and that scale. Though TBH I think that number was for replacing a lot of power lines and such too. A lot of thr
And nuclear power is still cheaper even with the upfront costs so... ?
The thing with solar and wind is I never see a solution other than coal or oil for "what happens at night or when there's no wind?"
Are we going to build giant lithium batteries? The ecological and pollution costs for that is massive. Is there even enough lithium on the planet for building batteries to service the entirety of the US? Legit question I'm not trying to fear monger there or be a dick about it.
There's some interesting developments with carbon batteries but those are at least 10 years, probably much longer.
Build coal plant for night time? Well if we're worried about radioactive waste and pollution that seems like a fools errand and counter-productive.
Nuclear power is not cheaper.
For night you either build a mix of renewables or use a storage technique. Solar thermal instead of photovoltaic for example.
The meltdown in Japan was directly because the plant operator cut corners. Specifically they did not build a large enough sea wall. Another plant did, took a bigger hit, and was fine.
The bulk of the cost in this case is loans and associated regulatory expenses.
Also you can build a wall as high as you want, if a plane falls on your fucking building your active meltdown systems aren't going to work regardless just because the wall over here is 10 feet taller than the wall over there. This is a dumb point and you seem dead set on "fuck nuclear" so whatever I guess.
The bulk of the cost in the US is from the construction companies fucking things up. Repeatedly. In France, for example, they're better at it and it brings the cost down a lot. In the US it's really bad planning coupled with poor construction methods. Regulatory burdens aren't actually that high. The reactor in Georgia was screwed up by basic stuff like not installing rebar correctly or fucking up welds. Over and over until it's at 150% of the original quote and horribly behind schedule. And not done yet.
In Japan, the plant that melt down cut corners. And they could very well have had two meltdowns if not for one very persistent dude.
Finally, Oshima said, Tohoku's president agreed to spend more for the higher wall -- before resigning to take responsibility for an electricity rate increase. The wall ended up at 46 feet, according to the team's recent inspection.
Not so at Fukushima Dai-ichi, whose reactors came on line during the 1970s. That plant's seawall was built to withstand a tsunami of less than 19 feet, the inspectors said.
On March 11, 2011, the Great East Japan Earthquake rocked the country, merely flooding a basement at the Onagawa plant. The 9-magnitude quake unleashed a 43-foot tsunami that traveled 44 miles from the epicenter to slam into Hirai's seawall. It held.
Note that in the 1960s, less than a decade before the plant was built, a 33 foot tsumani hit Japan. This isn't some random "Lol what the fuck" event, this was just stupid design.
According to ExxonMobil, global oil and gas demand will rise by 13% by 2030. All of the majors, not just ExxonMobil, are expected to expand their output. Far from mothballing all their gasfields and gushers, the industry is investing in upstream projects from Texan shale to high-tech deep-water wells. Oil companies, directly and through trade groups, lobby against measures that would limit emissions. The trouble is that, according to an assessment by the IPCC, an intergovernmental climate-science body, oil and gas production needs to fall by about 20% by 2030 and by about 55% by 2050, in order to stop the Earth’s temperature rising by more than 1.5°C above its pre-industrial level.
It would be wrong to conclude that the energy firms must therefore be evil. They are responding to incentives set by society. The financial returns from oil are higher than those from renewables. For now, worldwide demand for oil is growing by 1-2% a year, similar to the average over the past five decades—and the typical major derives a minority of its stockmarket value from profits it will make after 2030. However much the majors are vilified by climate warriors, many of whom drive cars and take planes, it is not just legal for them to maximise profits, it is also a requirement that shareholders can enforce.
"It would be wrong to conclude that the energy firms must therefore be evil" reminded me of this:
Huey: Granddad, look what you did to the community.
Granddad: It's not that bad.
Huey: Not that bad? This place used to sit between a coffee shop and a day spa. Now there's a liquor store and a damn Foot Locker. This food is destructive.
Granddad: This food is your culture!
Huey: Then the culture is destructive!
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Well that's an incredibly stupid article. They aren't just responding to incentives, as noted in the article they are acting to shape those incentives. That's what lobbying is. And yes lobbying to increase fossil fuel use is evil.
So let's change those incentives. Carbon tax, right now. Starting now, no new permits for coal power plants. In 2022, no permits for oil plants. In 2025, no permits for natural gas. Starting in 2030, no repairs for coal plants. You break, you shut down. Etc.
How's that financial outlook now? Not so hot just with the carbon tax I would bet. Wonder how they'll respond to sane incentives that don't let them offload the cost of their polution on others
+22
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
I'd be totally fine with nuclear power as part of the mix, but that's mostly as a theoretical situation. Practically, the US has been pretty crappy at building reactors, so unless the plan is to hire France to do the work I think it'd probably be better to just go nuts on other sources and not waste time on the gaping money pit that seems to be the usual nuclear plant project in the US.
I like that they're asking for the moon here. We've already delayed far too long on dealing with climate change, and every delay means it will take more resources to avoid absolute disaster. Two decades ago we maybe could get away with half measures in order to at least get the ball rolling. Now we need to go balls out and we'll still probably end up losing some major coastal cities. And that's the US, I don't even like to consider what will be happening in places like Bangladesh.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
We don't take care of the nuclear plants we have now- there's a plant near me (Palisades - that routinely springs leaks and has other things go wrong with it because it was built in the 70s. The company that owns it has been trying to close it for years, but things always seem to get in the way... it was originally supposed to close last autumn, but now it's going to be in service for a few more years. If you keep pushing something like that, sooner or later something major is going to screw up, and the trickle of escaped radiation into the enviroment isn't good.
Modern, safer, better plants might help, but only as part of a plan that lowers our reliance on nuclear power. That's not going to happen, because as soon as we start flying foreign experts in to help design them, we're going to hit major shit from the 'Murica and MAGA geese who are going to whine about how we're relying on outside help and how we can do this ourselves. Yet look at things: they have cleaner, safer, better, more modern plants that give out more electricity. How many two-headed fish and mutated frogs do we have to find before we realize it's worth it to listen to people who actually know more about things instead of relying on old tech that doesn't work?
But all these people pushing to pollute more are banking on the fact that they can just keep kicking the can down the road because the effects won't hit them. They have no problem selling out the future to cash out in the present, because as long as they show profits for the stockholders as long as they're in charge, that's all that really matters to these people. They'll let the world flood as long as they have the money to build a wall or a dome around their estates to keep the sea out.
Current estimates put the rebuilding of the US electric grid at 48 trillion over ten years so like I'm not sure why cost effectiveness for nuclear is an issue
Also unless a plan also includes stuff for electric storage it will be impossible to be fully 100% renewable
Because bang for your buck is even more important and that scale. Though TBH I think that number was for replacing a lot of power lines and such too. A lot of thr
And nuclear power is still cheaper even with the upfront costs so... ?
The thing with solar and wind is I never see a solution other than coal or oil for "what happens at night or when there's no wind?"
Are we going to build giant lithium batteries? The ecological and pollution costs for that is massive. Is there even enough lithium on the planet for building batteries to service the entirety of the US? Legit question I'm not trying to fear monger there or be a dick about it.
There's some interesting developments with carbon batteries but those are at least 10 years, probably much longer.
Build coal plant for night time? Well if we're worried about radioactive waste and pollution that seems like a fools errand and counter-productive.
Nuclear power is not cheaper.
For night you either build a mix of renewables or use a storage technique. Solar thermal instead of photovoltaic for example.
The meltdown in Japan was directly because the plant operator cut corners. Specifically they did not build a large enough sea wall. Another plant did, took a bigger hit, and was fine.
The bulk of the cost in this case is loans and associated regulatory expenses.
Also you can build a wall as high as you want, if a plane falls on your fucking building your active meltdown systems aren't going to work regardless just because the wall over here is 10 feet taller than the wall over there. This is a dumb point and you seem dead set on "fuck nuclear" so whatever I guess.
The bulk of the cost in the US is from the construction companies fucking things up. Repeatedly. In France, for example, they're better at it and it brings the cost down a lot. In the US it's really bad planning coupled with poor construction methods. Regulatory burdens aren't actually that high. The reactor in Georgia was screwed up by basic stuff like not installing rebar correctly or fucking up welds. Over and over until it's at 150% of the original quote and horribly behind schedule. And not done yet.
In Japan, the plant that melt down cut corners. And they could very well have had two meltdowns if not for one very persistent dude.
Finally, Oshima said, Tohoku's president agreed to spend more for the higher wall -- before resigning to take responsibility for an electricity rate increase. The wall ended up at 46 feet, according to the team's recent inspection.
Not so at Fukushima Dai-ichi, whose reactors came on line during the 1970s. That plant's seawall was built to withstand a tsunami of less than 19 feet, the inspectors said.
On March 11, 2011, the Great East Japan Earthquake rocked the country, merely flooding a basement at the Onagawa plant. The 9-magnitude quake unleashed a 43-foot tsunami that traveled 44 miles from the epicenter to slam into Hirai's seawall. It held.
Note that in the 1960s, less than a decade before the plant was built, a 33 foot tsumani hit Japan. This isn't some random "Lol what the fuck" event, this was just stupid design.
It’s amazing how many nuclear accidents and large scale“accidents” in general (like say the BP gulf spill) can be attributed to the 7 P’s - Poor prior planning and preparation leads to piss-poor performance.
Especially since in many cases it seems the poor planning and preparation were intentional,as those things cost money someone didn’t want to spend.
+4
Options
38thDoelets never be stupid againwait lets always be stupid foreverRegistered Userregular
According to ExxonMobil, global oil and gas demand will rise by 13% by 2030. All of the majors, not just ExxonMobil, are expected to expand their output. Far from mothballing all their gasfields and gushers, the industry is investing in upstream projects from Texan shale to high-tech deep-water wells. Oil companies, directly and through trade groups, lobby against measures that would limit emissions. The trouble is that, according to an assessment by the IPCC, an intergovernmental climate-science body, oil and gas production needs to fall by about 20% by 2030 and by about 55% by 2050, in order to stop the Earth’s temperature rising by more than 1.5°C above its pre-industrial level.
It would be wrong to conclude that the energy firms must therefore be evil. They are responding to incentives set by society. The financial returns from oil are higher than those from renewables. For now, worldwide demand for oil is growing by 1-2% a year, similar to the average over the past five decades—and the typical major derives a minority of its stockmarket value from profits it will make after 2030. However much the majors are vilified by climate warriors, many of whom drive cars and take planes, it is not just legal for them to maximise profits, it is also a requirement that shareholders can enforce.
I'm so sick of this line of attack. People are saying that we need to reduce our carbon footprint but they also have a carbon footprint so we can safely disregard everything they are saying. Al Gore flies more than the average person and lives in a house so we can ignore him. Just writing this I realize that this is whataboutism. Its amazingly effective for how stupid it is.
Posts
There are some theoretical hybrid reactors that can recycle fission waste into a fusion reaction supposedly.
And I'm not saying "loosen regulations" I'm saying "make better regulations that apply to reactors not built in 1950 and 1960" (like fuku that was built in the 60s). We already have the passive meltdown systems, why do we need regulations on active meltdown designs? Build better reactors.
Because bang for your buck is even more important and that scale. Though TBH I think that number was for replacing a lot of power lines and such too. A lot of thr
I'm pretty sure that theory is bunk. You start getting into perpetual motion machine territory there.
Those hybrid reactors require separate fuel, they use a fission reactor to generate neutrons which trigger a fusion reaction, the same way a thermonuclear bomb does, not to generate the fuel itself.
Wars cost more. Millions of people dying costs more. *Insert massive human suffering cause here* costs more.
Atomic bombs, tanks, planes, ships all cost a lot of money too but we certainly needed them at the time...
And nuclear power is still cheaper even with the upfront costs so... ?
The thing with solar and wind is I never see a solution other than coal or oil for "what happens at night or when there's no wind?"
Are we going to build giant lithium batteries? The ecological and pollution costs for that is massive. Is there even enough lithium on the planet for building batteries to service the entirety of the US? Legit question I'm not trying to fear monger there or be a dick about it.
There's some interesting developments with carbon batteries but those are at least 10 years, probably much longer.
Build coal plant for night time? Well if we're worried about radioactive waste and pollution that seems like a fools errand and counter-productive.
Yup.
Their meltdown control(edit) was "active" meaning it required power to shut down the reaction. So their backup generators kicked on and did their job... until the tsunami hit the generators and took them offline.
You don't need active meltdown control, there are passive styles that work just fine.
It's a moot point, it was a 40 year old nuclear power plant that needed to be updated. It was hardly because anyone cut corners, just not a great design and the concept has progressed considerably in those 40 years. There's still plenty of nuclear techs, engineers, and chemists being trained and taught all over the US.
ie use excess day energy to roll a boulder up a hill, drop the bolder at night to spin a generator.
I've seen a few Tom Scott videos on massive physical batteries. Basically, pump water up a hill, or compress air in a cave, when you've got a surplus of solar or wind, and then release it at night.
A flywheel? They're great for low throughput systems but not a power grid. But I might be wrong about their application in things outside of like a mill or something.
One thing that people under 40 have trouble understanding about nuclear power in the U.S. is the extent to which American capitalists being American capitalists ruined the reputation of nuclear power through cost-cutting, incompetence, abusive labor practices, whistleblower coercion and possibly even outright murder, and multiple serious accidents, including the Three Mile Island near meltdown. There's a reason nuclear's reputation crashed between the 1960s and 1980s that goes beyond leftist fear-mongering.
Hydro is a common example.
Pump water to reservoir, use hydroelectric when your solar/wind drops off.
The crap thing is that's also massively expensive and a total shitshow if something fails.
Unless we manage some kind of planet wide grid system we're gonna need something that generates significant power on demand at all times.
Maybe battery tech will come along and save us but I doubt it will in time.
Nuclear power is not cheaper.
For night you either build a mix of renewables or use a storage technique. Solar thermal instead of photovoltaic for example.
The meltdown in Japan was directly because the plant operator cut corners. Specifically they did not build a large enough sea wall. Another plant did, took a bigger hit, and was fine.
Yeah, there’s a couple of different waste products.
There are a set of elements that are useful for fission. In theory this set includes anything heavier than iron but practically is limited to elements in the actinide series - atomic number 89 and above. There is a set of elements that are useful for fusion - agian this in theory would include anything below iron but is practically limited to probably the first 4 or 5 elements on the chart.
Fission works by converting heavy elements into lighter ones. Most fission we do now focuses on U-235, which is a minority of most fuel sources, so most waste is heavy elements that just aren’t particularly good at fission but are still viable fuel sources, and a smaller portion is actual fission products which are lighter elements, but ones that are still heavier than iron.
So as an analogy, what we are doing now is equivalent to taking a barrel of crude oil, refining the gasoline, and taking the rest and dumping it in the ground as waste. We could with effort take out the diesel and kerosene and burn that too, but we will never be able to burn ashes and co2.
Edit: As said above though you can definitely use neutrons/alpha particles/etc from fusion reactions help to power fission reactions and vise versa, but that isn’t really using waste as those particles would just be flying off into space as radiation anyway.
There is still wind at night, last I checked (less of it, but). Rivers still run, the tides still come in and out...
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
I am not sure what "mix of renewables" and/or storage technique is feasible at the scale it's needed is?
Nuclear power is a specific, known, solution.
I am legit curious what the specific other solutions are and "renewables" is vague.
yeah salt water sucks.
I think solar/wind + hydro reservoirs is a "simple" solution but it's just as costly from what I've read and not feasible everywhere.
The bulk of the cost in this case is loans and associated regulatory expenses.
Also you can build a wall as high as you want, if a plane falls on your fucking building your active meltdown systems aren't going to work regardless just because the wall over here is 10 feet taller than the wall over there. This is a dumb point and you seem dead set on "fuck nuclear" so whatever I guess.
Has to be vague because what works depends on where you're building it. Hawaii can make really good use of geothermal, wind and all types of solar for example. Meanwhile hydro storage and generation is difficult or impossible. On the other hand, Seattle still gets a surprisingly useful amount of solar but probably not enough for grid scale. But it has plenty of hydro. Etc.
My problem starts when places who have nuclear or experience with nuclear choose something like natural gas or coal because renewables aren't ready in that place and nuclear is politically untennable.
Yeah that attitude is dumb. Especially given coal releasing more radioactive material on average than nuclear.
Bombs or power?
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
Power.
She's a younger millennial IIRC, so it's likely she either doesn't have a lot of knowledge of nuclear power, or thinks it's not a good thing because of meltdowns.
She seems pretty smart so this would likely be that her constituents have those concerns.
I don't envy any politician trying to argue for nuclear power in this climate.
People can't even get on board fucking vaccines at this point.
Oddly... the older conservatives in my area wonder why there aren't more nuclear plants (we have three-ish reactors in Oswego NY).
Gonna hazard a guess those people aren't AOC fans.
True. Which reminds us of the power of oil. Nothing is going to end that as far as I can tell.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
true but also completely the opposite of people I'd expect to be looking for nuclear power too
This is a common misconception. Fukushima was no longer fissioning when it had meltdowns. It was the decay heat of the fuel, and the inability to remove that heat, which caused meltdowns. Any reactor will have decay heat for days after reactor shutdown. If that heat is not removed, any reactor will meltdown. This decay is not fission, but it does happen because of fission products.
When you mention "passive process" you are probably thinking of designs that use natural convection. These reactors can keep cooling the core during the decay heat period without the use of electrical pumps.
The bulk of the cost in the US is from the construction companies fucking things up. Repeatedly. In France, for example, they're better at it and it brings the cost down a lot. In the US it's really bad planning coupled with poor construction methods. Regulatory burdens aren't actually that high. The reactor in Georgia was screwed up by basic stuff like not installing rebar correctly or fucking up welds. Over and over until it's at 150% of the original quote and horribly behind schedule. And not done yet.
In Japan, the plant that melt down cut corners. And they could very well have had two meltdowns if not for one very persistent dude.
https://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/2012/08/how_tenacity_a_wall_saved_a_ja.html
Note that in the 1960s, less than a decade before the plant was built, a 33 foot tsumani hit Japan. This isn't some random "Lol what the fuck" event, this was just stupid design.
"It would be wrong to conclude that the energy firms must therefore be evil" reminded me of this:
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
So let's change those incentives. Carbon tax, right now. Starting now, no new permits for coal power plants. In 2022, no permits for oil plants. In 2025, no permits for natural gas. Starting in 2030, no repairs for coal plants. You break, you shut down. Etc.
How's that financial outlook now? Not so hot just with the carbon tax I would bet. Wonder how they'll respond to sane incentives that don't let them offload the cost of their polution on others
I like that they're asking for the moon here. We've already delayed far too long on dealing with climate change, and every delay means it will take more resources to avoid absolute disaster. Two decades ago we maybe could get away with half measures in order to at least get the ball rolling. Now we need to go balls out and we'll still probably end up losing some major coastal cities. And that's the US, I don't even like to consider what will be happening in places like Bangladesh.
Modern, safer, better plants might help, but only as part of a plan that lowers our reliance on nuclear power. That's not going to happen, because as soon as we start flying foreign experts in to help design them, we're going to hit major shit from the 'Murica and MAGA geese who are going to whine about how we're relying on outside help and how we can do this ourselves. Yet look at things: they have cleaner, safer, better, more modern plants that give out more electricity. How many two-headed fish and mutated frogs do we have to find before we realize it's worth it to listen to people who actually know more about things instead of relying on old tech that doesn't work?
But all these people pushing to pollute more are banking on the fact that they can just keep kicking the can down the road because the effects won't hit them. They have no problem selling out the future to cash out in the present, because as long as they show profits for the stockholders as long as they're in charge, that's all that really matters to these people. They'll let the world flood as long as they have the money to build a wall or a dome around their estates to keep the sea out.
I can has cheezburger, yes?
It’s amazing how many nuclear accidents and large scale“accidents” in general (like say the BP gulf spill) can be attributed to the 7 P’s - Poor prior planning and preparation leads to piss-poor performance.
Especially since in many cases it seems the poor planning and preparation were intentional,as those things cost money someone didn’t want to spend.
I'm so sick of this line of attack. People are saying that we need to reduce our carbon footprint but they also have a carbon footprint so we can safely disregard everything they are saying. Al Gore flies more than the average person and lives in a house so we can ignore him. Just writing this I realize that this is whataboutism. Its amazingly effective for how stupid it is.