7 ms·

> On top of that we see articles (this isn't the first) who try to reframe the question of energy consumption around land use, which is a complete red hering, d

by mdf 4y ago

> On top of that we see articles (this isn't the first) who try to reframe the question of energy consumption around land use, which is a complete red hering, designed to make nuclear look more advantageous. I wonder, what's your opinion on these two matters: - the sixth mass extinction - carbon sinks In my opinion as a concerned environmentalist, they are both extremely important and need immediate actions to have even a small chance of being somewhat remedied. Land use is an important facet of how exactly we are destroying the environment and as such it does make sense to consider it as one of the dimensions when planning energy production. And to be clear, there are lots of species that don't just accept any "close enough" environment as their living place. For example, willow tits in Finland are endangered because here they mainly live in old forests that include dead trees – unacceptable for timber and pulp industry. Edit: I want to emphasize that I don't see land use concerns as an attempt to reframe the question, limiting the dimensions the energy sector is thought of. Rather, IMO it's a welcome important additional feature to think of.

pydry 4y ago
>Land use is an important facet of how exactly we are destroying the environment and as such it does make sense to consider it as one of the dimensions when planning energy production. It makes sense to consider it but the overriding dominant factor is still cost which is where nuclear power falls flat on its face. That's why you'll almost never see an article submitted to hacker news that discusses it.
cycomanic 4y ago
>> On top of that we see articles (this isn't the first) who try to reframe the question of energy consumption around land use, which is a complete red hering, designed to make nuclear look more advantageous. > I wonder, what's your opinion on these two matters: > - the sixth mass extinction > - carbon sinks > In my opinion as a concerned environmentalist, they are both extremely important and need immediate actions to have even a small chance of being somewhat remedied. Land use is an important facet of how exactly we are destroying the environment and as such it does make sense to consider it as one of the dimensions when planning energy production. I agree that these are important issues to consider, however I disagree that this is important in the context of energy production. Land use by all types of energy production is miniscule compared to agriculture, urbanisation and roads (in another post someone mentioned that the space parking lots occupy in the US is 5 times larger than the area needed to power the whole country with solar). These discussions are essentially aimed to distract from the important goal of reorienting our energy production toward renewables. It is telling that almost all pro-nuclear articles that we have seen recently argue which should put more money into nuclear vs renewables, not arguing about what is the quickest way to turn of coal plants. The reason I suspect is that the companies that run and build large nuclear power plants are to a large degree the same companies that are involved in running fossil fuel plants. Renewables essentially threaten the business model of building large power plants that will run and provide guaranteed profits for decades, while renewables which are much more decentralised threaten their business model.
- titzer 4y ago
  > The reason I suspect is that the companies that run and build large nuclear power plants are to a large degree the same companies that are involved in running fossil fuel plants. Renewables essentially threaten the business model of building large power plants that will run and provide guaranteed profits for decades, while renewables which are much more decentralised threaten their business model. Citation needed, citation needed, and citation needed. Large wind farms are mega corporate and there's a zillion corporations competing to create big solar installations or to corner the market on solar installs. > These discussions are essentially aimed to distract from the important goal of reorienting our energy production toward renewables. And many argue "renewables" should include nuclear, because of how much nuclear fuel there is on this planet. We are in the current carbon bind because economies followed the cheapest, most incremental solution to adding energy production, greased by political corruption and gaslighting. Short-sighted, focused only on solving the problems of the present. Renewals with huge footprint like big solar installs and wind farms are exactly the same kind of short-sighted thinking that will gift us another pile of problems in 30 years. Nuclear power, particulary with small modular reactors, is the best long-term bet. Coupled with residential solar installations, which basically don't mean any new land use, this is a future that is sustainable. Not vast deadlands anywhere.
  - cycomanic 4y ago
    > > The reason I suspect is that the companies that run and build large nuclear power plants are to a large degree the same companies that are involved in running fossil fuel plants. Renewables essentially threaten the business model of building large power plants that will run and provide guaranteed profits for decades, while renewables which are much more decentralised threaten their business model. > Citation needed, citation needed, and citation needed. Large wind farms are mega corporate and there's a zillion corporations competing to create big solar installations or to corner the market on solar installs. I did say suspect, so I don't have proof. However traditionally the nuclear and coal lobby have been working very closely together at least in Germany. Regarding the size of corporations i think we can agree that nuclear projects are much bigger than solar? The biggest builder of solar parks in Germany has a a revenue of 1-1.5 Billion euros, so not small fish, but also not a huge corporation. Moreover, if we look at the distribution of solar capacity Germany had 20 GW of solar capacity in 2016 (could not find a more recent number), of those the large >20 MW installations are less than 2 GW (2022 numbers, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Germany) so solar is definitely much more decentralised than nuclear or coal. > > These discussions are essentially aimed to distract from the important goal of reorienting our energy production toward renewables. > And many argue "renewables" should include nuclear, because of how much nuclear fuel there is on this planet. First that is not an argument that follows. Second unless we talk about currently viable technology we have about 40 years of uranium left in the world. I know you now come with all sorts of recycling solutions that might work in the future. That might be true, but we need solutions now and renewables are already cheaper so why go for nuclear. >We are in the current carbon bind because economies followed the cheapest, most incremental solution to adding energy production, greased by political corruption and gaslighting. Citation needed, because I'm not sure what you are talking about, but nuclear has received many multiples of subsidies compared to solar/wind (mind you coal is still much more). >Short-sighted, focused only on solving the problems of the present. Renewals with huge footprint like big solar installs and wind farms are exactly the same kind of short-sighted thinking that will gift us another pile of problems in 30 years. We already established that the land requirements for solar and wind are miniscule compared to other land uses. We could meet capacity needs likely by just putting solar on roofs, roads and parking lots. It's also quite rich to argue against renewables as short sighted while ignoring the nuclear storage elefant in the room. Again recycling is not economically viable and produces large amounts of mid and low grade waste which also needs to be stored. But let's just push that problem to future generations. > Nuclear power, particulary with small modular reactors, is the best long-term bet. We see in Ukraine just now how distributing nuclear reactors all over the place is maybe not a good idea. Moreover, that small modular reactors will result in any savings from "economies of scale", generally construction in contrast to fabrication does not benefit much. There was also an article here recently which showed that a significant portion of the nuclear plant cost is the same as any other thermal plant. > Coupled with residential solar installations, which basically don't mean any new land use, this is a future that is sustainable. Not vast deadlands anywhere.

by mdf 4y ago

pydry 4y ago

>Land use is an important facet of how exactly we are destroying the environment and as such it does make sense to consider it as one of the dimensions when planning energy production. It makes sense to consider it but the overriding dominant factor is still cost which is where nuclear power falls flat on its face. That's why you'll almost never see an article submitted to hacker news that discusses it.

cycomanic 4y ago

>> On top of that we see articles (this isn't the first) who try to reframe the question of energy consumption around land use, which is a complete red hering, designed to make nuclear look more advantageous. > I wonder, what's your opinion on these two matters: > - the sixth mass extinction > - carbon sinks > In my opinion as a concerned environmentalist, they are both extremely important and need immediate actions to have even a small chance of being somewhat remedied. Land use is an important facet of how exactly we are destroying the environment and as such it does make sense to consider it as one of the dimensions when planning energy production. I agree that these are important issues to consider, however I disagree that this is important in the context of energy production. Land use by all types of energy production is miniscule compared to agriculture, urbanisation and roads (in another post someone mentioned that the space parking lots occupy in the US is 5 times larger than the area needed to power the whole country with solar). These discussions are essentially aimed to distract from the important goal of reorienting our energy production toward renewables. It is telling that almost all pro-nuclear articles that we have seen recently argue which should put more money into nuclear vs renewables, not arguing about what is the quickest way to turn of coal plants. The reason I suspect is that the companies that run and build large nuclear power plants are to a large degree the same companies that are involved in running fossil fuel plants. Renewables essentially threaten the business model of building large power plants that will run and provide guaranteed profits for decades, while renewables which are much more decentralised threaten their business model.

titzer 4y ago
> The reason I suspect is that the companies that run and build large nuclear power plants are to a large degree the same companies that are involved in running fossil fuel plants. Renewables essentially threaten the business model of building large power plants that will run and provide guaranteed profits for decades, while renewables which are much more decentralised threaten their business model. Citation needed, citation needed, and citation needed. Large wind farms are mega corporate and there's a zillion corporations competing to create big solar installations or to corner the market on solar installs. > These discussions are essentially aimed to distract from the important goal of reorienting our energy production toward renewables. And many argue "renewables" should include nuclear, because of how much nuclear fuel there is on this planet. We are in the current carbon bind because economies followed the cheapest, most incremental solution to adding energy production, greased by political corruption and gaslighting. Short-sighted, focused only on solving the problems of the present. Renewals with huge footprint like big solar installs and wind farms are exactly the same kind of short-sighted thinking that will gift us another pile of problems in 30 years. Nuclear power, particulary with small modular reactors, is the best long-term bet. Coupled with residential solar installations, which basically don't mean any new land use, this is a future that is sustainable. Not vast deadlands anywhere.
- cycomanic 4y ago
  > > The reason I suspect is that the companies that run and build large nuclear power plants are to a large degree the same companies that are involved in running fossil fuel plants. Renewables essentially threaten the business model of building large power plants that will run and provide guaranteed profits for decades, while renewables which are much more decentralised threaten their business model. > Citation needed, citation needed, and citation needed. Large wind farms are mega corporate and there's a zillion corporations competing to create big solar installations or to corner the market on solar installs. I did say suspect, so I don't have proof. However traditionally the nuclear and coal lobby have been working very closely together at least in Germany. Regarding the size of corporations i think we can agree that nuclear projects are much bigger than solar? The biggest builder of solar parks in Germany has a a revenue of 1-1.5 Billion euros, so not small fish, but also not a huge corporation. Moreover, if we look at the distribution of solar capacity Germany had 20 GW of solar capacity in 2016 (could not find a more recent number), of those the large >20 MW installations are less than 2 GW (2022 numbers, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Germany) so solar is definitely much more decentralised than nuclear or coal. > > These discussions are essentially aimed to distract from the important goal of reorienting our energy production toward renewables. > And many argue "renewables" should include nuclear, because of how much nuclear fuel there is on this planet. First that is not an argument that follows. Second unless we talk about currently viable technology we have about 40 years of uranium left in the world. I know you now come with all sorts of recycling solutions that might work in the future. That might be true, but we need solutions now and renewables are already cheaper so why go for nuclear. >We are in the current carbon bind because economies followed the cheapest, most incremental solution to adding energy production, greased by political corruption and gaslighting. Citation needed, because I'm not sure what you are talking about, but nuclear has received many multiples of subsidies compared to solar/wind (mind you coal is still much more). >Short-sighted, focused only on solving the problems of the present. Renewals with huge footprint like big solar installs and wind farms are exactly the same kind of short-sighted thinking that will gift us another pile of problems in 30 years. We already established that the land requirements for solar and wind are miniscule compared to other land uses. We could meet capacity needs likely by just putting solar on roofs, roads and parking lots. It's also quite rich to argue against renewables as short sighted while ignoring the nuclear storage elefant in the room. Again recycling is not economically viable and produces large amounts of mid and low grade waste which also needs to be stored. But let's just push that problem to future generations. > Nuclear power, particulary with small modular reactors, is the best long-term bet. We see in Ukraine just now how distributing nuclear reactors all over the place is maybe not a good idea. Moreover, that small modular reactors will result in any savings from "economies of scale", generally construction in contrast to fabrication does not benefit much. There was also an article here recently which showed that a significant portion of the nuclear plant cost is the same as any other thermal plant. > Coupled with residential solar installations, which basically don't mean any new land use, this is a future that is sustainable. Not vast deadlands anywhere.