this post was submitted on 21 Nov 2024
348 points (93.5% liked)
solarpunk memes
2873 readers
926 users here now
For when you need a laugh!
The definition of a "meme" here is intentionally pretty loose. Images, screenshots, and the like are welcome!
But, keep it lighthearted and/or within our server's ideals.
Posts and comments that are hateful, trolling, inciting, and/or overly negative will be removed at the moderators' discretion.
Please follow all slrpnk.net rules and community guidelines
Have fun!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I just don't see why so many people are dead set on only solar/wind/hydro as "green" and nuclear and other more exotic power generation methods that don't emit greenhouse gases are somehow unacceptable.
Isn't the goal net zero? Why are we quibbling about how we achieve that?
Can't we just do whatever we must to get there and move on with our existence?
There's a great distinction that Norwegian philosopher and deep ecologist Anre Naess makes between long-range and short-range movements which I think helps explain the disagreement a little.
In the short term, we need to reduce CO2 for our own survival. Nuclear helps this, so from this angle it seems counterproductive for anyone who claims concern over the environment to object to its development.
In the long term, humans need to transition away from a society based on resource extraction, and long term damage. It's a lot harder to see how nuclear helps with this- mining and enriching uranium are destructive processes, and nuclear waste needs containment for thousands of years.
Our current situation is pretty critical, so I think it's pretty legitimate to think that we might need to make some compromises between the long and short term. But I think the distinction makes it a lot clearer about why people seem to be shouting passed each other sometimes.
Mostly because nuclear is incredibly expensive and takes too long to build. If we want to achieve net zero anytime soon, going all-in on renewables is currently the most economically viable option.
Nuclear is there as a back up for when the sun doesn't shine, the wind doesn't blow, you don't have enough space for renewables, or you've reached the capacity for building and repairing renewables (Either logistically, in lack of expertise, or lack of public support). If you can't find a solution for that the result you end up with is just going back to fossil fuels when the times are tough. That's not carbon neutrality.
Battery storage is also still a breakthrough away from being viable enough to store all the electricity renewables could potentially generate to be able to sustain a 100% load when they are less effective, not to mention the amount of infrastructure required for them to be able to do so. You need some kind of baseline to supplement it that works when nothing else does.
We need both renewables and nuclear, and nuclear should never be a reason not to invest in renewables. But the same goes the other way around. We're in a crisis, we can't be pedantic about this stuff when the world waited out the clock to the very end like a teenager the day before his exam. We can pick the perfect options when it is no longer the enemy of good options. Until then every option should be explored.
Nuclear is a terrible backup. It's far too expensive, requires a ton of highly educated personnel we don't have and is not flexible enough to act as a quick backup if renewables fluctuate too much. On top of that there are very few moments where there is almost no wind or sunshine over a very large area all at once, making it economically unviable to an enormous degree.
Obviously the best backup is battery storage, which is ramping up in production capacity quite quickly. And it allows far more decentralisation: a lot of homes can be fitted with a small battery pack, which combined with some solar allows them to be basically off the grid. Combined with more research showing PV cells are still up to 80% the efficiency they were designed for after 30 years (suggesting they last far longer than estimated), it seems solar is becoming an ever stronger long-term solution. It's also becoming cheaper each year beyond even the most optimistic scenarios.
But even something like gas is a more preferable alternative to nuclear. It's very cheap and still viable when needing to spin up or down quickly. It also requires less educated personnel than nuclear and most countries have at least a few built already. Sure there's more emissions, but for those 30 days of the year you really need them that's still well over 95-98% of emissions cut when compared to the current fossil fuel mix.
Unfortunately it is, because money is finite. And investers choose whatever is most viable, which increasingly is not nuclear.
I'm hopeful for fusion, but as always that's at least a decade away from commercial viability.
The same people that build nuclear don't build solar or wind. And yes, there is a huge shortage for these people with renewables, which is where the black and white flat cost of energy sources breaks down. Renewables are slightly less expensive than nuclear, but infinitely more expensive when their natural source is unavailable and battery / hydro storage is depleted. "far too expensive" is highly over exaggerated when nuclear costs about 1-3x as much as renewables, with newer reactors being on the low end of that scale.
To make this happen you need a massive amount of overcompensation for the times that the sun does shine and the wind does blow. The kind that isn't economically viable. You're building decentralized infrastructure that needs to be maintained while being essentially useless a lot of the time. You also can't exactly build a new wind/solar park in response to short term fluctuating demand, while you can scale up reactor utility.
The biggest users of electricity are not homes. You're right, this is a fine setup for houses. But you're not going to solve the biggest energy users this way. Not to mention, even for people at home, the amount of rare earth metals required with current technology is an ecological disaster in it's own right. We need batteries, but lets not pretend they are currently a final solution. Decentralization is not a magic cure all, decentralization also causes places with outdated energy infrastructure requiring new investments to completely revamp the system. This is not economically viable.
This is not carbon neutral, which is what our goal is. So you're essentially conceding the point here. You also highly overestimate how many days a year you would need them, considering the sun doesn't shine for at least HALF the day on average.
Which is why nuclear is necessary. As the engineers that can build and maintain renewables are busy, and the grid is oversaturated with renewables when the sun is shining and the wind blowing (causing their efficiency / utilization to fall if you build any more) they will eventually break the equation in favor of nuclear. And there are still nuclear reactors being built in places where public opinion isn't irrationally afraid of nuclear.
The sad thing is we could have been building them 20 years ago, and have had massive steps ahead in being green now. Instead we are here hoping for some kind of miracle technology like cheap batteries, nuclear fusion, carbon capture, all which isn't a certainty to become fruitful, yet nuclear is here right now.
Yeah, the best time to start building nuclear plants was 20+ years ago. Unlike most things, the second-best time is not now, however - we're at a point where the massive expenditure for nuclear power generation is just a big question mark as to whether it'll be cost-effective by the time it's finished. There just haven't been enough breakthroughs in the past few decades to improve the cost-effectiveness of nuclear power substantially, while renewables are faster to install, cheaper to replace, and advancing at a rapid clip.
Definitely should still keep any nuclear plants we still have running, though. My home state of Maryland generates over 1/3 of its power through a nuclear plant. Would be 2/3s if the Obama administration didn't screw us over 'foreign' (EU) suppliers being a 'security risk' back in 2010 or so, ffs.
No advancements?
Is SMR a joke to everyone?
Look, I'm not saying nuclear is the only path forward, far from it. I don't think any path is the only path forward. I believe that we'll need a compilation of various generation methods to meet the demands of tomorrow.
The only thing I want to see in that future is no coal, nor fuel plants. Those two are the most common types of greenhouse gas-producing plants in use. The objective, in my mind, is to entirely phase them out. Whatever gets us there, is good with me. If that turns out not to be nuclear, that's fine too. If SMR or any other kind of nuclear is required to make that a reality, that's also fine.
I. Don't. Care.
Yes, because it hasn't really been demonstrated to be particularly viable. You don't need tons of small reactors, that's way too much logistical and regulatory overhead for little capacity. And you need way more auxiliary infrastructure and personnel that way, driving up costs that exceed what you save by modularizing them.
I love the idea and the potential of SMRs, but the comment you’re replying to said there weren’t sufficient advances to make it economically competitive. That’s true.
Any time I see a new graph of the cost per kwh for the several largest power generation types, the SMR range makes me sad. I’m sure a bunch of the smarter timelines are getting 80% of their power from cheap, mass produced, passively safe, self-contained SMRs installed individually in remote areas or in large banks near population centers. But for our dumb asses it seems so far off economically. (Granted that’s because fossil fuel power plants don’t cover the costs of their externalities, but that’s also how our stupid world works)