kravietz 🦇 @kravietz@social.privacytools.io

@Mr_Teatime @loonycyborg @gretathunberg @drq

> Nuclear fission

FUsion! FIssion is what we do now :)

> we should totally try to work that out but we should not rely on it, at least yet

Exactly! And now it's the moment you should realize that the very same argument that is pulled to dismiss fusion also applies to power-to-gas, smart grid, hydrogen and other prospective technologies on which theoretical 100% renewable depends.

@Mr_Teatime @drq @gretathunberg

> Catch the sun where it shines, wind where it blows

This was exactly the idea of DESERTEC. Please go and check the history of the project, because their PowerPoint slides looked really cool (sample attached) and then they hit a range of real-world challenges such as large distance transmission, sand and... politics, because sun happened to be in countries not exactly known to be reliable or stable.

@Mr_Teatime @drq @gretathunberg

> people shouting that nuclear energy is essential are afraid

No, these people are usually very well aware that you can't make plutonium with PWR or EAR. The proliferation argument is used exclusively by Greenpeace and friends.

> UK is afraid of wind turbines on land

Because every fscking square meter (sorry, they call it "yard" here) of land is occupied? If not by people, then by farm land, if not farm land then nature reserves.

@Mr_Teatime @loonycyborg @gretathunberg @drq

By the way, we had enooormously long discussion exactly on the topic of smart grid with @loweel just 2 days ago here. I need to bookmark these things, as it took me like 10 mins to find it 🤦‍♂️

https://boseburo.ddns.net/objects/c0fc3cfa-7584-45b1-aee4-dfeb73733418

@Mr_Teatime @loonycyborg @gretathunberg @drq

> Nuclear power (...) can't vary its output very fast

Modern nuclear plant - 20 minutes
Modern gas plant - 10 minutes

Is that not fast enough?

> a large enough grid would

We don't have large enough grid, just as we don't have large enough storage, power-to-gas, hydrogen - or clean nuclear fusion for that matter. We may have them in 30 years, but that's pretty much when we should have *already* decarbonized the energy sector.

IPCC 2019:

@drq @Mr_Teatime @gretathunberg

Well, their reaction is quite obvious - because Germany has sent for recycling something that Greenpeace claimed will be deadly poisonous for billions of years. Germany and Russia have thus stolen their favourite scare 😂

And yes, Rosatom does really cool engineering these days, including the RITM-200 modular reactor, and has very good safety record.

@Mr_Teatime @drq @gretathunberg

And it makes a lot of sense there. Not so much in Europe. But also note the downsides:

* area - 2500 ha (!)
* water usage - 1.7 million m3 per year

And as DrQ noted, it's 510 MW so around the same as a single reactor at Dungeness B nuclear power plant in UK produces, except it works 24 h and the whole plant occupies 0.3 km2.

@loonycyborg @gretathunberg @Mr_Teatime @drq

I thin I saw some ideas to build solar panels on Earth stationary orbit and then send the power down using lasers or something :)

@Mr_Teatime @loonycyborg @gretathunberg @drq

You're absolutely right here. We should be adding more wind and solar, as much as possible, but since 100% is not possible, for baseline we should use nuclear which is zero emissions, rather than gas and coal.

Decarbonization is the priority now. In 30 years we might have nuclear fusion which is zero emissions and does not produce any waste, or some other completely new technology.

@Mr_Teatime @drq @gretathunberg

You also might be unaware of that, but we are storing extremely toxic waste in underground storage - mercury, arsenic, cyanides. This is in Germany:

https://www.kpluss.com/en-us/our-business-products/waste-management/underground-disposal/

And unlike nuclear, they don't lose toxicity over time. They'll stay there forever.

Have you seen Greenpeace freaking out about these? 🤔