Batteries, yo.
Dammit! I was gonna go with hamsters on wheels.
What? PV requires up to 75 times the space for equal output.
Your number does not include the mining and transportation. They are more equal than face value.
Well we will have to do without a lot of stuff⌠like silicon, aluminum, etc., stuff that modern society requires but takes LOADS of electricity to make.
Well we will have to do without a lot of stuff⌠like silicon, aluminum, etc., stuff that modern society requires but takes LOADS of electricity to make.
What makes you think that?
Most aluminium is smelted using (pumped) hydro, AFAIK.
Nuclear waste isnât even THAT bad. Seriously they may be âradioactive for 10,000 yearsâ but probably within a few years the waste will have decayed to the point that as long as theyâre inside a container theyâre not dangerous. Actually even those pools where they store the waste in is safe to swim in. The only likely cause of death swimming in there is lead poisoning⌠as in nuclear power plants are secured facilities. Breaking into one is likely to get you shot.
Nuclear power is key in decreasing climate change. It releases no carbon, and produces a lot of energy, energy industries need.
Green energy only works if you go back to the stone age.
And consider that nuclear power has such insane energy density⌠itâs almost like cheating.
If you reprocess the fuel (which nobody will do because of politics) the same waste could be used almost endlessly. Consider that a PWR is refueled every 18 months, replacing something like a third of the fuel pellets⌠for a coal plant to match the energy output they would need many trainloads of coal, burning daily, while spewing crap all over the air.
Go check out Vritish columbias (canada) power source. 90 plus percent is green eenrgy (hydro). Its avsolutely doable, and its cold there and needs heat. Truthfully, household heating can be totally electric (they still use curnace, natural gas a lot) very easily there. Again, im not saying ts thethe fix for.taiwan. but saying green energy doeant work is just as false as saying nuclear is 100% terrible or 100% clean.
Ill let you swim in those pools, im not gunna.
Though a common thought is the radiation is small. People are being quite unrealistic on radiation as we get a little bit of radiation a lot of times per day. Phones, tv, computer, sun, power and tramsission towers, comminucation t owers, xrays, sun etc etc. I know its common to ignore it, but that shit adds up to more than just occassional run ins.
We donât need to mine much uranium and could extract all we need easily from seawater. Breeder reactors create more fuel than they use.
thorium. there, i said it
Also letâs consider that youâll only need to mine enough uranium to fit inside a truck. A single mind would probably supply half the world with electricity for a long time.
Whereas coal require you to strip the earth bare, for enough energy for one day.
Sometimes, sometimes not.
I agree. Thatâs why modern reactors need to be built starting yesterday in places where renewables canât.
Itâs a lot of infrastructure work to get the grid in the condition youâre describing too, whereas nuclear is basically plug and play.
Iâd rather go full ahead with nuclear now along with possible renewables, and slowly replace it as renewable and battery technology improves. Better to have a backup plan when +8C is coming by 2100.
I donât like the idea of destroying new habitats for solar and wind either.
We donât need to mine much uranium and could extract all we need easily from seawater. Breeder reactors create more fuel than they use.
Also letâs consider that youâll only need to mine enough uranium to fit inside a truck. A single mind would probably supply half the world with electricity for a long time.
Whereas coal require you to strip the earth bare, for enough energy for one day.
What is the concentrations these mines are able to extract uranium at?
Thorium is much more abundant and breeder reactors can turn it into fissile U-233.
Thatâs why modern reactors need to be built starting yesterday in places where renewables canât.
There are really very few of these places. I canât think of any countries that would benefit from nuclear power, and are capable of operating it, that donât already have nuclear power. On the other hand there are a lot of places that would benefit enormously from renewables but are being discouraged from using them by vested interests trying to sell them last centuryâs technology.
Itâs a lot of infrastructure work to get the grid in the condition youâre describing
whereas nuclear is basically plug and play.
Iâd say itâs the other way about. Solar is plug and play. It doesnât even need a grid. Nuclear is anything but plug and play. You need an enormous amount of âhardwareâ and âsoftwareâ to make it work. Any country that isnât flush with cash doesnât have a hope in hell.
I donât like the idea of destroying new habitats for solar and wind either.
That just doesnât happen. Solar can be âoverlaidâ on other things, eg., pasture. Batteries can be placed anywhere - in fact the optimum location is close to point-of-load.
U-235 is 0.7% of the ore.
Ore concentrations vary, but in situ recovery is possible now, as is extracting it from seawater, which surely contains enough uranium until fusion is possible, about 4 billion tons.
The problem is the US would very much like to have monopoly in uranium 235 enrichment technology. The same technology to enrich uranium for reactors can be used for making bombs too.
Same goes for waste reprocessing technology.
Hereâs 44MW.
12 SMRs could fit on 1/10 of the area and provide 600MW.
So what does that prove?
What is being overlaid in that modern, recent implementation of solar?
They already have the IAEA that works with any country committed to peaceful uses. See the recent Saudi Arabia deals.
Solar gets put on roofs. Taiwan fucked up,royally by turning farmland and wild habitats into lower grade solar farms. Very typical taiwanese government logic. There are so many damn roof tops that cant use used for anything but the shade they provide. Its avsolute lunacy to consider otherwiseâŚand before others start hating, our factory roof is all solar and my factory sells more power than it uses. so there. Plus we are near the mountains and have far fewer clear days than many industrial locations like kaohsiung through taichung.
Solar isnt enough alone, but right now risky and dirty sources arent either, they are combinations. eg. Coil, fossil fuels and nuclear. The all or nothing argumnet is a non starter on both sides and hurts my brain when people are straight up against things like wind. and solar. Ironically, many such people rarely consider hydro green energy despite it being exactly that. Likely because its tried and true and very efficient and effective. Bear in mind, i am not considering chinese versions as they fuck up everything.they touch.