Energy Discussion

[Flash]

There is a lot to be desired with this. Alternative energy has its place, but it’s been treated like a silver bullet in Europe (and in portions of the US)- one which does not eliminate a carbon footprint, it only relocates the pollution elsewhere, while driving up cost and reducing redundancy.

While the manufacture of some renewable energy sources generate pollution their overall impact is still likely less than continuing to burn (literally) fossil fuels that provide most of our energy today, in addition to energy used in extracting them.

Overall I think it is a good goal to strive for, not something to be dictated and adhered to at any cost.

Properly designed grids should have a base load capacity covered by strategically located, large-capacity plants (ideally modern nuclear designs), alternative sources like wind and solar, and sufficient capacity for storage and surge demands. It doesn’t drive carbon emissions to zero, but it reduces them per capita, and yields time and capacity while more sustainable energy production methods are developed (…fusion maybe…?)

I largely agree, though the nuclear bit is a bit of a hot potato politically. We've had enough nuclear accidents that it makes a lot of politicians and the voting public wary, even with newer designs that reduce the possibility of an accident. Then there is what to do with the waste, that we still have figured out.

Treating alternative energy like a carbon-free panacea has gotten to a point where it is causing problems, and special interests going to the opposite extreme are equally problematic.

And that is one of the things I'm seeing becoming national policy right now, rejecting almost all renewables on a national scale just to 'own the greens' when very valuable contributions could be made by renewables.

 

[Swanee]

Then there is what to do with the waste, that we still have figured out.

Modern reactor designs are much more efficient, and can even run on current and older reactors' spent fuel.

While the problem won't be solved, I believe as we continue to develop nuclear energy capabilities the problem won't be as large is it now.

But yes, it will produce waste products that will be dangers for thousands of years to come.

 

[exNavyOffRec]

Then there is what to do with the waste, that we still have figured out.

Most of the waste is low level waste and poses no actual danger compared to other things we are exposed to.

 

[Lawman]

Most of the waste is low level waste and poses no actual danger compared to other things we are exposed to.

It’s also an overstated problem for the mass of it that exists.

The fracking industry absolutely has a way to dispose of it safely in a manner that would lead to the near impossibility of it being a problem, but it would require some open mindedness on handling of something that brings about a lot of ideological gridlock. Oak Ridge labs already has demonstrated the ability to put the stuff into the ground at depth and the growth in the skill sets caused by the commercial sector provide for ways forward on it. https://www.nbcnews.com/sciencemain/scientist-sees-fracking-way-dispose-nuclear-waste-2d11732363

.

 

[Spekkio]

Nuclear energy isn't popular mostly because it's currently one of the most expensive ways, in terms of dollars per kW-hr generated, to deliver power to the American people.

Everything about building and operating the plant costs an order of magnitude more money to manage the risk of a reactor accident, and it still hasn't been fool proof.

It's not a special interest conspiracy or people being risk-adverse due to TMI and Fukushima. It's because it costs too much money for too little ROI.

 

[sevenhelmet]

Nuclear energy isn't popular mostly because it's currently one of the most expensive ways, in terms of dollars per kW-hr generated, to deliver power to the American people.

Everything about building and operating the plant costs an order of magnitude more money to manage the risk of a reactor accident, and it still hasn't been fool proof.

It's not a special interest conspiracy or people being risk-adverse due to TMI and Fukushima. It's because it costs too much money for too little ROI.

That’s true today, but it doesn’t have to be that way. A lot of that cost is in maintaining older plants, and like any old equipment, maintenance cost increases over time. The cost structure of new generation plants is fundamentally different than cold-war era tech. Streamlining getting new gen plants online and scaling factors could reduce that cost in similar fashion to how wind and solar have reduced per-kWh cost over time. We would have to suck up the initial expense, regulatory hurdles, and long lead time somewhere, and that’s the challenge nobody has been willing or able to tackle. Special interest groups that represent quick money and 4-year election cycles generally don’t help with that situation.

Bottom line, you can build wind and solar, or “drill baby drill” before the next election. Nuke takes a longer vision, and we aren’t very good at that.


I will probably die on this hill, but I maintain my argument nuke is a critical part of our future, unless we want to slowly degrade to third-world status.

 

[Griz882]

In the end, we are going to have to rely on a multi source energy system. Nuclear, wind, solar, geothermal, and even some fossil fuels. Every part of this will require costs that in turn will be passed on to the users. Put simply, electricity is not a fundamental right so we are going to have to pay for our addictions.