7 ms·

False dichotomy of saying we have the consequences of climate change OR we have a few Chernobyl like incidents. We don’t need to choose between these options.

False dichotomy of saying we have the consequences of climate change OR we have a few Chernobyl like incidents. We don’t need to choose between these options. We can avoid climate change without nuclear energy

lisper 5y ago
> We can avoid climate change without nuclear energy How?
- jacquesm 5y ago
  Massive investments in renewables, capping your personal energy budget to something reasonable rather than what you can afford from a financial perspective, aiming for energy neutrality in buildings (doable, I've seen demonstration setups in the early 2000's). And even then: we can no longer avoid climate change, you can take that to the bank. The very best we can do is limit the impact of the climate change that is inevitable now.
  - rsj_hn 5y ago
    "capping your energy budget" is a non-starter. I oppose it, the majority opposes it, and this is a good way of getting kicked out of power and then having even your realistic policies rolled back. Unless you're the type of person who enjoys being right rather than being effective, you'll make reasonable proposals that have a chance of being enacted, rather than unreasonable proposals that lose elections. The future is one of cheap, abundant energy, that is growing in use. It is one of increasing industrialization and output. Increasing consumption and production. If you can't find a way to get there, then you'll be left behind as the rest of the world chooses a different path.
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      Yes, god forbid we would enact realistic policies. No, instead, let's stick our heads in the sand and kick the bucket down the road a generation. That's worked so well so far. Elections are great, right up to the point where you are going to have to make very harsh decisions affecting the majority. I predict our democratic institutions will be a casualty of climate change long before we will allow ourselves to become overwhelmed by climate change itself.
      - dmitriid 5y ago
        > Yes, god forbid we would enact realistic policies. What's your realistic policy for energy storage that's required for renewables?
        jacquesm 5y ago
        Offloading the problem to the consumer. If you want power continuity then you will have to provide it yourself. If you want reliable power that will be available but a significant premium over the unreliable version, and there will be a limited supply of that reliable power. Pumped storage where available will help a lot, grid scale battery systems are nowhere near powerful enough to take on a significant fraction of the worlds powersupply so we'll have to make do. Rationing of critical resources has many historical precedents, it's time we realized that power is not infinitely available at will, even though we would very much like it to be that way.
        slowmovintarget 5y ago
        So only the rich get continuous power?
        jacquesm 5y ago
        It's already like that if you look at it on a country-by-country basis, and rolling blackouts have been a thing for a long time even in developed countries, even if their use is for a different reason. And in combination with an energy budget it's more a matter of whether you need continuity or if you can get by and save some money. I've lived in places where energy delivery was flaky an intermittent and everybody gets by, the only problem is with industrial processes that are hard or even impossible to restart, for everybody else continuity can be optional, especially if there is some possible prediction of when it will be available and when it will not.
        dmitriid 5y ago
        > If you want reliable power that will be available but a significant premium over the unreliable version, and there will be a limited supply of that reliable power. Ah yes. What a libertarian view of the world. The rich will get the power while the unfortunate ones won't even be able to refrigerate their food. Medical equipment will fail. People will freeze in winter. Trains will not run. etc. Also. How do you propose to separate reliable and non-reliable energy sources? By building a parallel energy grid? How is this a realistic policy? > Rationing of critical resources has many historical precedents, it's time we realized that power is not infinitely available at will It's not unlimited. However, it's not as scarce and limited as you want to make it.
    - LargoLasskhyfv 5y ago
      I oppose you.
  - lisper 5y ago
    It seems a bit peculiar to respond to the question "how can we avoid climate change without nuclear energy?" by advocating renewables and then following that with "we can no longer avoid climate change." Maybe we can avoid climate change with nuclear energy even though we can't without it. And even if we can't avoid it under any circumstances, maybe we can mitigate the net negative consequences more effectively with nuclear than without.
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      We can't avoid it. We will be able to mitigate, and nuclear will help with mitigation, but it's a means to an end, and not 'our best bet', just one of many bets, and hopefully one that will pay off in time. But weighing the alternatives of investing every $ into renewables rather than into nuclear for a much more immediate pay-off is a difficult matter, hence the all-out push of the nuclear lobby. And as for the 'solar and wind' lobby, it exists, but is far less powerful.
  - tuatoru 5y ago
    > Massive investments in renewables Massive investments will be made either way, either in replacing worn-out fossil fuel plant or in renewables. The cost is a given. Renewables look cheaper: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-09-23/biden-s-faster-solar-power-plan-will-make-energy-cheaper https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-09-23/biden-...
goatlover 5y ago
That's easy to say, but how do we accomplish it without nuclear?
- runarberg 5y ago
  I can just as easily ask: “how do we accomplish it with nuclear?” The answer—off course—is the same in either case. We build the infrastructure. Renewables and nuclear both require a tremendous amount of infrastructure. Much of this infrastructure would even be the same in either case since we need to move from fossil fuel power to electricity (e.g. electrify rail lines, build high speed train, etc.) There is off course difference in the electricity generation. Nuclear relies on building really big and expensive plants in locations far away from the consumption. Each design is unique and will take a while from plan to delivery. Renewables on the other hand, have the benefits of diversity of design. It can be distributed and centralized, build far away or close to consumption. It seems to me that if you want to avoid the climate disaster, doing it without nuclear is actually the easier/more realistic option.
  - dmitriid 5y ago
    > The answer—off course—is the same in either case. We build the infrastructure. No. The answer isn't the same. Renewables have one inescapable design flaw: they can't provide baseline power, and we can't store energy effectively. You got no wind, no sun? Your power grid is dead with renewables. Nuclear (and cola, and gas) will keep going.
    - runarberg 5y ago
      That flaw is by no means inescapable. Renewable energy is cheap, so it doesn’t matter if you can’t store it efficiently. If you loose 75% of the energy by storage you can just make 4 times the amount to compensate. So the answer here is still the same: Infrastructure. Note we also have unexplored battery technology which might make storing more efficient in the future so really the answer here is primarily infrastructure (but also research and technology). And the same goes for the lack of baseline. A flaw yes, but not so inescapable. You can diversify the grid with distributed, stored, and centralized power, each can compensate for the flaws in the other. You can capture wind off shore, dam for hydro in the mountains, and build whole bunch of solar in the desert. You can connect different climates with high voltage power lines such that if one area experiences low solar and low wind at the same time for weeks at a time, excess power generated from adjacent regions could compensate. The answer is still the same: infrastructure.

lisper 5y ago

> We can avoid climate change without nuclear energy How?

jacquesm 5y ago
Massive investments in renewables, capping your personal energy budget to something reasonable rather than what you can afford from a financial perspective, aiming for energy neutrality in buildings (doable, I've seen demonstration setups in the early 2000's). And even then: we can no longer avoid climate change, you can take that to the bank. The very best we can do is limit the impact of the climate change that is inevitable now.
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  "capping your energy budget" is a non-starter. I oppose it, the majority opposes it, and this is a good way of getting kicked out of power and then having even your realistic policies rolled back. Unless you're the type of person who enjoys being right rather than being effective, you'll make reasonable proposals that have a chance of being enacted, rather than unreasonable proposals that lose elections. The future is one of cheap, abundant energy, that is growing in use. It is one of increasing industrialization and output. Increasing consumption and production. If you can't find a way to get there, then you'll be left behind as the rest of the world chooses a different path.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    Yes, god forbid we would enact realistic policies. No, instead, let's stick our heads in the sand and kick the bucket down the road a generation. That's worked so well so far. Elections are great, right up to the point where you are going to have to make very harsh decisions affecting the majority. I predict our democratic institutions will be a casualty of climate change long before we will allow ourselves to become overwhelmed by climate change itself.
    - dmitriid 5y ago
      > Yes, god forbid we would enact realistic policies. What's your realistic policy for energy storage that's required for renewables?
      - jacquesm 5y ago
        Offloading the problem to the consumer. If you want power continuity then you will have to provide it yourself. If you want reliable power that will be available but a significant premium over the unreliable version, and there will be a limited supply of that reliable power. Pumped storage where available will help a lot, grid scale battery systems are nowhere near powerful enough to take on a significant fraction of the worlds powersupply so we'll have to make do. Rationing of critical resources has many historical precedents, it's time we realized that power is not infinitely available at will, even though we would very much like it to be that way.
        slowmovintarget 5y ago
        So only the rich get continuous power?
        jacquesm 5y ago
        It's already like that if you look at it on a country-by-country basis, and rolling blackouts have been a thing for a long time even in developed countries, even if their use is for a different reason. And in combination with an energy budget it's more a matter of whether you need continuity or if you can get by and save some money. I've lived in places where energy delivery was flaky an intermittent and everybody gets by, the only problem is with industrial processes that are hard or even impossible to restart, for everybody else continuity can be optional, especially if there is some possible prediction of when it will be available and when it will not.
        dmitriid 5y ago
        > If you want reliable power that will be available but a significant premium over the unreliable version, and there will be a limited supply of that reliable power. Ah yes. What a libertarian view of the world. The rich will get the power while the unfortunate ones won't even be able to refrigerate their food. Medical equipment will fail. People will freeze in winter. Trains will not run. etc. Also. How do you propose to separate reliable and non-reliable energy sources? By building a parallel energy grid? How is this a realistic policy? > Rationing of critical resources has many historical precedents, it's time we realized that power is not infinitely available at will It's not unlimited. However, it's not as scarce and limited as you want to make it.
  - LargoLasskhyfv 5y ago
    I oppose you.
- lisper 5y ago
  It seems a bit peculiar to respond to the question "how can we avoid climate change without nuclear energy?" by advocating renewables and then following that with "we can no longer avoid climate change." Maybe we can avoid climate change with nuclear energy even though we can't without it. And even if we can't avoid it under any circumstances, maybe we can mitigate the net negative consequences more effectively with nuclear than without.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    We can't avoid it. We will be able to mitigate, and nuclear will help with mitigation, but it's a means to an end, and not 'our best bet', just one of many bets, and hopefully one that will pay off in time. But weighing the alternatives of investing every $ into renewables rather than into nuclear for a much more immediate pay-off is a difficult matter, hence the all-out push of the nuclear lobby. And as for the 'solar and wind' lobby, it exists, but is far less powerful.
- tuatoru 5y ago
  > Massive investments in renewables Massive investments will be made either way, either in replacing worn-out fossil fuel plant or in renewables. The cost is a given. Renewables look cheaper: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-09-23/biden-s-faster-solar-power-plan-will-make-energy-cheaper https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-09-23/biden-...

goatlover 5y ago

That's easy to say, but how do we accomplish it without nuclear?

runarberg 5y ago
I can just as easily ask: “how do we accomplish it with nuclear?” The answer—off course—is the same in either case. We build the infrastructure. Renewables and nuclear both require a tremendous amount of infrastructure. Much of this infrastructure would even be the same in either case since we need to move from fossil fuel power to electricity (e.g. electrify rail lines, build high speed train, etc.) There is off course difference in the electricity generation. Nuclear relies on building really big and expensive plants in locations far away from the consumption. Each design is unique and will take a while from plan to delivery. Renewables on the other hand, have the benefits of diversity of design. It can be distributed and centralized, build far away or close to consumption. It seems to me that if you want to avoid the climate disaster, doing it without nuclear is actually the easier/more realistic option.
- dmitriid 5y ago
  > The answer—off course—is the same in either case. We build the infrastructure. No. The answer isn't the same. Renewables have one inescapable design flaw: they can't provide baseline power, and we can't store energy effectively. You got no wind, no sun? Your power grid is dead with renewables. Nuclear (and cola, and gas) will keep going.
  - runarberg 5y ago
    That flaw is by no means inescapable. Renewable energy is cheap, so it doesn’t matter if you can’t store it efficiently. If you loose 75% of the energy by storage you can just make 4 times the amount to compensate. So the answer here is still the same: Infrastructure. Note we also have unexplored battery technology which might make storing more efficient in the future so really the answer here is primarily infrastructure (but also research and technology). And the same goes for the lack of baseline. A flaw yes, but not so inescapable. You can diversify the grid with distributed, stored, and centralized power, each can compensate for the flaws in the other. You can capture wind off shore, dam for hydro in the mountains, and build whole bunch of solar in the desert. You can connect different climates with high voltage power lines such that if one area experiences low solar and low wind at the same time for weeks at a time, excess power generated from adjacent regions could compensate. The answer is still the same: infrastructure.