6 ms·

It appears as though Apple doesn't consider nuclear energy "clean". They don't mention it in writing anywhere, and from my locale in Chicago, the "Grid Forecast

by desro 3y ago

It appears as though Apple doesn't consider nuclear energy "clean". They don't mention it in writing anywhere, and from my locale in Chicago, the "Grid Forecast" available in the Home app is very stingy with its determination of "cleaner" energy, despite IL running on at least 58% nuclear energy (as of 2020).

audunw 3y ago
In terms of global warming, nuclear energy can never get to zero because they’re thermal power plants that directly contribute to warming of the planet. The effect is surprisingly significant. Though, as long as we’re burning fossil fuels, green house gases will dominate enough that I personally think we can consider nuclear energy as clean. I’m just wary of making it the primary solution.
- danw1979 3y ago
  The thermal output of any nuclear or fossil fuel power station is not a significant source of global warming.
- nonethewiser 3y ago
  How do they warm the planet? They don’t emit CO2 right? So are you saying its just from radiant heat, or what? Seems hard to believe the heat it generates actually warms the planet.
  - lozenge 3y ago
    The process of refining ore is energy intensive and probably emits co2 in itself.
- eptcyka 3y ago
  This is a moot point, if a power plant operates at any significant efficiency, it doesn't matter what the process of generating power is - the generated power will 90% of the time be turned into waste heat anyway.
  - zelos 3y ago
    In the long term, I guess light emitted to space and the embedded energy in spaceships are the only things that don't end up as heat in the atmosphere?
    - eptcyka 3y ago
      Electrically induced chemical reactions would also store the energy in a way that might not be released as heat, I think.
- 127 3y ago
  What's your alternative for cleaner primary solution for base load?
- fodkodrasz 3y ago
  I’m happy to inform sounthat the palnet does emit thermal energy via radiation, so we likely won’t ignite it with nuclear/fusion powerplants emitting heat. Also: solar panels can actually get hot themselves. Think about it.
jillesvangurp 3y ago
Maybe they don't consider it economical? He was pretty clear about wanting to have solutions that are actually economical. Another consideration is that his timeline of seven years is not compatible waiting for nuclear plants to be built. Many recent nuclear plants come online years late and many billions over budget. So he'd have a good point.
- epups 3y ago
  Nuclear plants are economical for their use case. In days in which renewables cannot provide enough energy, your clean energy alternatives are batteries (of which we don't have nearly enough of, and are not economically viable today as an option) and hydro (we already tapped most possible resources for it).
  - hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
    Those are not the only alternatives for storage. I think Power-to-gas, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-to-gas https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-to-gas, will be an important part of energy storage. Basically, use excess renewable energy to create hydrogen and methane by means of electrolysis. That's essentially natural gas, which can then be used by conventional natural gas power plants.
    - epups 3y ago
      Will be, or is? I'm talking about the current state of technology. There is no clean viable alternative to nuclear except hydro.
      - hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
        Well, if you're talking about "the current state of technology", the general consensus as I understand it is that building new nuclear power plants is not cost effective with other forms of energy storage/generation capacity. I'm all for keeping existing nuclear plants online, but I don't think building new ones is the right decision. Also, yes, there are viable green hydrogen plants being built today: https://totalenergies.com/media/news/press-releases/total-and-engie-to-develop-france-s-largest-site-of-green-hydrogen https://totalenergies.com/media/news/press-releases/total-an... . Also, France is likely to lead in this area because they just got hydrogen produced with nuclear to be considered "green", which is a great thing in my opinion.
DrScientist 3y ago
The problem with the current generation of nuclear tech is 4 fold. * fuel sources are finite ( non-renewable ) * disposal of waste is an issue. * safety concerns makes building very costly ( have to be built to withstand an attack - not just an accident ) * nuclear energy is too adjacent to nuclear weapons for it to be a global solution. Current nuclear tech is a transitional technology - important for providing base-load, until better storage & better distributed grids are put in place.
- esjeon 3y ago
  > Current nuclear tech is a transitional technology - important for providing base-load, until better storage & better distributed grids are put in place. Yup, but the reality so sucks that we don't have alternatives proved to be effective in scale. We don't even have renewable energy that is eco-friendly through out its whole life cycle, just yet. Recycling tech is not catching up fast enough.
  - DrScientist 3y ago
    Yep - lots of work to do. On the positive side - battery technologies [1] are still improving fast, there is lots that could be done on the energy efficiency side. While big central powerstations are always going to be needed, I think the future will be more distributed generation and storage than today. We don't actually have a problem with lack of energy - the problem is capture, storage and distribution. [1] We need to think beyond just batteries for storage of course.

by desro 3y ago

audunw 3y ago

In terms of global warming, nuclear energy can never get to zero because they’re thermal power plants that directly contribute to warming of the planet. The effect is surprisingly significant. Though, as long as we’re burning fossil fuels, green house gases will dominate enough that I personally think we can consider nuclear energy as clean. I’m just wary of making it the primary solution.

danw1979 3y ago
The thermal output of any nuclear or fossil fuel power station is not a significant source of global warming.
nonethewiser 3y ago
How do they warm the planet? They don’t emit CO2 right? So are you saying its just from radiant heat, or what? Seems hard to believe the heat it generates actually warms the planet.
- lozenge 3y ago
  The process of refining ore is energy intensive and probably emits co2 in itself.
eptcyka 3y ago
This is a moot point, if a power plant operates at any significant efficiency, it doesn't matter what the process of generating power is - the generated power will 90% of the time be turned into waste heat anyway.
- zelos 3y ago
  In the long term, I guess light emitted to space and the embedded energy in spaceships are the only things that don't end up as heat in the atmosphere?
  - eptcyka 3y ago
    Electrically induced chemical reactions would also store the energy in a way that might not be released as heat, I think.
127 3y ago
What's your alternative for cleaner primary solution for base load?
fodkodrasz 3y ago
I’m happy to inform sounthat the palnet does emit thermal energy via radiation, so we likely won’t ignite it with nuclear/fusion powerplants emitting heat. Also: solar panels can actually get hot themselves. Think about it.

jillesvangurp 3y ago

Maybe they don't consider it economical? He was pretty clear about wanting to have solutions that are actually economical. Another consideration is that his timeline of seven years is not compatible waiting for nuclear plants to be built. Many recent nuclear plants come online years late and many billions over budget. So he'd have a good point.

epups 3y ago
Nuclear plants are economical for their use case. In days in which renewables cannot provide enough energy, your clean energy alternatives are batteries (of which we don't have nearly enough of, and are not economically viable today as an option) and hydro (we already tapped most possible resources for it).
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  Those are not the only alternatives for storage. I think Power-to-gas, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-to-gas https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-to-gas, will be an important part of energy storage. Basically, use excess renewable energy to create hydrogen and methane by means of electrolysis. That's essentially natural gas, which can then be used by conventional natural gas power plants.
  - epups 3y ago
    Will be, or is? I'm talking about the current state of technology. There is no clean viable alternative to nuclear except hydro.
    - hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
      Well, if you're talking about "the current state of technology", the general consensus as I understand it is that building new nuclear power plants is not cost effective with other forms of energy storage/generation capacity. I'm all for keeping existing nuclear plants online, but I don't think building new ones is the right decision. Also, yes, there are viable green hydrogen plants being built today: https://totalenergies.com/media/news/press-releases/total-and-engie-to-develop-france-s-largest-site-of-green-hydrogen https://totalenergies.com/media/news/press-releases/total-an... . Also, France is likely to lead in this area because they just got hydrogen produced with nuclear to be considered "green", which is a great thing in my opinion.

DrScientist 3y ago

The problem with the current generation of nuclear tech is 4 fold. * fuel sources are finite ( non-renewable ) * disposal of waste is an issue. * safety concerns makes building very costly ( have to be built to withstand an attack - not just an accident ) * nuclear energy is too adjacent to nuclear weapons for it to be a global solution. Current nuclear tech is a transitional technology - important for providing base-load, until better storage & better distributed grids are put in place.

esjeon 3y ago
> Current nuclear tech is a transitional technology - important for providing base-load, until better storage & better distributed grids are put in place. Yup, but the reality so sucks that we don't have alternatives proved to be effective in scale. We don't even have renewable energy that is eco-friendly through out its whole life cycle, just yet. Recycling tech is not catching up fast enough.
- DrScientist 3y ago
  Yep - lots of work to do. On the positive side - battery technologies [1] are still improving fast, there is lots that could be done on the energy efficiency side. While big central powerstations are always going to be needed, I think the future will be more distributed generation and storage than today. We don't actually have a problem with lack of energy - the problem is capture, storage and distribution. [1] We need to think beyond just batteries for storage of course.