@kravietz what are you intending to say with these pictures?
🇳🇱
@kravietz So there are a few days a year it might get too cold and they freeze up, or certain arctic regions they dont work... ok... your point? They are still fairly effective means of generating green energy, but they arent the whole of the solution.
Wind and solar are one of the least effective sources of energy available, both in terms of their capacity factor, material inputs and surface power density.
Regarding what I wanted to say through these pictures:
@kravietz I've done a lot of research on the numbers around these energy sources and none of that is remotely true other than surface power density which is a rather useless measure for most situations
Surface power density "useless"? Come one... If you need to occupy 250x larger area to obtain the same amount of energy I think it's very relevant, and practically makes it useless in high-density areas.
Capacity factor "not remotely true"? Come on... PV peaks 13% in UK, wind 40% for off-shore.
So you not only occupy larger space for the actual generation, but then need to double that for low CF, and then tripe for storage.
@kravietz but that's the basic problem, science in #renewableEnergy is concerned about (although in discussions it's mostly limited to classic energy storage and not other solutions like #PowerToX or even intelligent consumption control, sociological approaches...). So it's not like people working on renewable energy are not thinking about.
Yes, I've read studies of numerous 100% RE models with a simple assumption like "we just need to add 1 TWh of storage per year".
I absolutely don't mind the RE innovation as long as it doesn't turn into overzealous tribal war where low-carbon nuclear power plants are shut down... and replaced by fossil gas plants "because we need 24/7 electricity", as Germany and Belgium do all the time.
@kravietz i also don't mind if somebody would find a sufficient method of storing or taking care of the nuclear waste, it produces. ;)
You should really have done some actual research before using these decades-old Greenpeace cliches!
The reality of nuclear waste storage is simple and boringly safe:
1) it loses toxicity fast (down to 7% after 100 years)
2) it's produced in amounts so tiny that it can be stored in absolutely safe conditions
The photo below shows the whole 40 years of waste from the whole Swiss nuclear program:
.
@kravietz you heard of the federal German research program about nuclear storage, right?
Also, if you wan't to help me "getting up to date with the topic", why not poste some links to resources instead of posting a picture without context?
I'm honestly interested to change my mind if you can convince me by citing scientific sources i cannot find valid arguments against, or at least can name some trustworthy sources that present a different result.
That's absolutely not a problem as I have a massive library on that subject:
https://pinboard.in/u:kravietz/t:nuclear/
If you prefer YT then there is this video with a very strong scientific base about general radiation risks -- and their perception:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOvHxX5wMa8
If you prefer reading, there's this series of articles:
@kravietz i'll have to take some time to look through that, as, on first glance, not everything is about nuclear waste. I think that's the point where our opinions differ.
If you're interested specifically in the topic of waste I can recommend this podcast
https://www.deepisolation.com/blogs/new-deep-isolation-nuclear-waste-podcast-vlog/
Also the Deadly Sins article deals specifically with the topic of waste too:
https://michmat.medium.com/the-deadly-sins-9d03363de060
And this video from Orano processing plant in France:
https://scitech.video/videos/watch/53184e23-6490-4158-a616-68af6afc0925
If you prefer a book, then there's "Whole Earth Discipline" by Stewart Brand (2010)
They're inefficient, expensive, and dangerous precisely because they're primary purpose is *not* to provide cheap, clean, safe power.
The US military had 2 thorium salt test reactors in the late 40s or early 50s (can't recall the exact dates), but after years of research, they just couldn't find any way to get usable amounts of plutonium out of the decay chain, so they shuttered the whole program.
Don't blame nuclear power for the faults of nuclear weapons.
> alternate fuel production pipelines
You can't make plutonium in a VVR reactor either 🤷♂️
Most notable example on the proliferation topic is Iran - but I did check its history and it comes out their nuclear *weapons* program was completely independent from nuclear *power* program, they were totally separated and existed without any dependencies on each other.
Israel is another example of country that has weapons, but no civilian reactors.
> hey're primary purpose is *not* to provide cheap, clean, safe power
This is by all means true about RBMK reactors. There's maybe 10 RMBK reactors in the world and all of them in Russia.
Then we as society are already dealing with much more toxic waste produced by other industries... and we basically just deal with it safely thanks to modern science and engineering, no issues.
Where we are today, especially in the EU, is a completely ridiculous situation where a country practically run by people calling themselves "Greens" has one objective - to shut down all low-carbon nuclear power plants as soon as possible - and at the same time it's building new fossil gas pipeline, coal and gas power plants, because their 40% wind & power simply cannot deliver.
@kravietz i agree, that having german NPPs shut down, while france is running old, dangerous NPPs does not make sense from a conceptual point of view. But unfortunately Europe is not at the point where we agree on a common plan of action. But i have to say i am way more worrysome about nuclear power, since my current stance at this topic is, that we do not have a way of safely storing nuclear waste long term and it can pose great dangers when being weaponized or spilled.
Of course, it's your right to be more worried about a very unlikely possibility of spill from one of ~450 high-safety NPP running worldwide, than about the very likely and massively negative impact of climate change.
@kravietz I'm worried about climate change. I just argue that there is not just one way of solving the problem and i do not prefer a way that, in my opinion, creates another problem we have to deal with afterwards.
@kravietz i don't talk about the spill in NPPs, I'm talking about the spill in storage sites, like it has happened in Gorleben, Majak and other places.
Mayak is primarily plutonium processing facility, unrelated to civilian nuclear program, so it's unfair to link these two. After Chernobyl Russia had pretty good history in terms of nuclear industry safety even though it runs over 200 reactors.
Regarding Gorleben and 2017 Mayal leaks these have been too inflated beyond imagination - I mean the doses released in both were very small and had no biologic impact.
My point here is that due to improvement in detection and widespread monitoring network we are now able to detect trace amounts of isotopes, and any such case hits the news immediately with people scared to death about some kind of fall-out.
In reality, majority of the ionising radiation we receive during our life is natural and nuclear industry, including all past atom bombs exploded, nuclear accidents etc contribute <1% to that.
So the problem *is* massively inflated.
1. Energy optimization starts from:
-- decreasing consumption
-- changing consumption structure (not everything has to be electrical, especially cooking and heating)
increase of supply goes last.
2. Centralisation vs. resilience.
Vinay Gupta once mapped it neatly (SCIM aka Dartboard of Death):
> not everything has to be electrical, especially cooking and heating
*If* decarbonisation is the priority then I believe we should electrify as much as possible. Induction cooker is much more energy efficient than gas cooker, which is in turn more efficient than coal/wood cooker.
And the diagram is quite nice indeed.
That is why I wrote about "clash of priorities".
Just to be clear: I do believe wind, solar and other renewable energy sources are necessary and most countries still have potential to increase their share and reduce dependency on fossil fuels.
Just don't tell me 100% wind and power is possible.