Electrickery is coming. GULP!

[MikkiJayne]

I think the people of Chernobyl might disagree with that first graph. Also, when solar goes wrong it doesn't tend to render the area uninhabitable for 20,000 years.

Interesting that nuclear uses so little concrete.

[moltuae]

Originally Posted by steamship

Here's an interesting article also about the nuclear industry, and goes into how clean nuclear could really be. The link points to the Wayback Machine, as the link on the real site doesn't work.

https://web.archive.org/web/20131005...m/busted1.html

Interesting. It wouldn't surprise me if much of that is true. I remember watching a documentary some years ago about the Windscale disaster, where ex-workers gave their accounts on what really happened. Apparently the British government put pressure on Windscale to dramatically increase production. This was not for the benefit of producing more clean energy but so that the waste/by-product of the nuclear reaction could be used to make atomic bombs. Warnings were ignored and production was eventually pushed beyond breaking point.

[tintin]

Originally Posted by MikkiJayne

I think the people of Chernobyl might disagree with that first graph. Also, when solar goes wrong it doesn't tend to render the area uninhabitable for 20,000 years.

Interesting that nuclear uses so little concrete.

+1. It would be helpful to at least provide the source for these graphs (unless I missed that), so that it's clear where this analysis originates from. And nuclear safety is a bit like aircraft safety - all or nothing, and I certainly wouldn't have got on a 737 Max 8 last week.

The nuclear industry also has a less than perfect track record of concealment of problems, which seems embedded in the industry culture (particularly in the West), so I'm slightly sceptical about safety claims.

As a topical and close to home example, Hunterston B, on the West Coast of Scotland, is still shut down, due to the cracks discovered around the core of that reactor. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-47485321

It's also worth noting the global tendency to site nuclear sites far from large population centres, which may or may not imply some concern about the fallout risk.

[moltuae]

Originally Posted by MikkiJayne

I think the people of Chernobyl might disagree with that first graph. Also, when solar goes wrong it doesn't tend to render the area uninhabitable for 20,000 years.

Very true. But what are the long term effects of renewables like solar if we've got it wrong? We could be causing environmental damage that might take much longer than 20,000 years to recover from, if recovery is even possible.

And while even one death is a death too many, nuclear is still statistically the safest, so I don't think we should be deterred by the disasters of the past. We should learn from disasters such as Chernobyl and move on. Similarly, despite over 1 million deaths caused by road traffic accidents worldwide each year, nobody would suggest we ban all motorised vehicles. Instead we learn from accidents and strive to make roads safer through research and technology.

[tintin]

Originally Posted by moltuae

Very true. But what are the long term effects of renewables like solar if we've got it wrong? We could be causing environmental damage that might take much longer than 20,000 years to recover from, if recovery is even possible.

And while even one death is a death too many, nuclear is still statistically the safest, so I don't think we should be deterred by the disasters of the past. We should learn from disasters such as Chernobyl and move on. Similarly, despite over 1 million deaths caused by road traffic accidents worldwide each year, nobody would suggest we ban all motorised vehicles. Instead we learn from accidents and strive to make roads safer through research and technology.

Interesting thread this one: what are the likely long term environmental damages for more than 20,000 years from solar that you're thinking of Mark? Or extending that slightly, I'd also be interested in the same likely potential long term damages from other renewables - e.g. wind and wave. They're not obvious to me.

[moltuae]

Originally Posted by tintin

The nuclear industry also has a less than perfect track record of concealment of problems, which seems embedded in the industry culture (particularly in the West), so I'm slightly sceptical about safety claims.

As a topical and close to home example, Hunterston B, on the West Coast of Scotland, is still shut down, due to the cracks discovered around the core of that reactor. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-47485321

But we're talking about older technology here and dated nuclear facilities. With investment, Nuclear power can be made very safe. Just like the development of electric vehicles, the safety concerns associated with the use of volatile battery technologies and very high current charging are challenges to overcome, not deterrents.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclea...eactor_designs

New reactor designs
The nuclear power industry has moved to improve engineering design. Generation IV reactors are now in late stage design and development to improve safety, sustainability, efficiency, and cost. Key to the latest designs is the concept of passive nuclear safety. Passive nuclear safety does not require operator actions or electronic feedback in order to shut down safely in the event of a particular type of emergency (usually overheating resulting from a loss of coolant or loss of coolant flow). This is in contrast to older-yet-common reactor designs, where the natural tendency for the reaction was to accelerate rapidly from increased temperatures. In such a case, cooling systems must be operative to prevent meltdown. Past design mistakes like Fukushima in Japan did not anticipate that a tsunami generated by an earthquake would disable the backup systems that were supposed to stabilize the reactor after the earthquake.[157] New reactors with passive nuclear safety eliminate this failure mode.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor

And the holy grail would be Cold Fusion of course, if we ever crack that elusive problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion


Personally I think that we should also focus on developing better ways to extract geothermal energy along with making nuclear power safer. Solar and wind energy are ok for supplementing small-scale local energy needs but they're far too impractical for meeting global energy needs.

[moltuae]

Originally Posted by tintin

Interesting thread this one: what are the likely long term environmental damages for more than 20,000 years from solar that you're thinking of Mark? Or extending that slightly, I'd also be interested in the same likely potential long term damages from other renewables - e.g. wind and wave. They're not obvious to me.

If you watch the TED talk I posted, he puts forward a very credible argument about the damaging effects of renewables. I'm not saying that I fully agree with his point of view (I would need to do some research first); I was just posting the talk because I think he makes some plausible points that are worth discussing here. I'm completely open to any counter-information that invalidates his claims.

What he says does make a lot of sense I think though. When you consider the vast amount of land, materials, manufacturing energy, transportation, hazardous materials, etc, etc that would be required to produce sufficient wind and solar generation units to power the entire planet, there will certainly be a price to pay, especially when you consider that those type of renewable energy sources produce miniscule amount of power relative to their size.

[moltuae]

Originally Posted by tintin

+1. It would be helpful to at least provide the source for these graphs (unless I missed that), so that it's clear where this analysis originates from.

Here's the sources cited at the foot of the graphs in the video (I cropped the graphs when I screen-shotted them, unintentionally omitting that info):

The first one cites the Lancet (a peer-reviewed medical science journal):
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...253-7/fulltext

You need to register to view the study (registration is free) so I've attached the pdf version of it.

The second graph cites the US Dept. of Energy, in particular the Quadrennial Technology Review of 2015:
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/fi...iew-2015_1.pdf

[tintin]

....and not much time to think

Thanks for the reminder to watch the video Mark - I haven't yet, but I will when I get time later this week.

Interestingly, a very quick (and therefore potentially not reliable ) google search brings up this website - https://www.wiseinternational.org/nu...s#main-content - which paints Shellenberger as a pro-nuclear activist (though it does seem to be written by an anti-nuclear group, which is why understanding sources is so important these days...). At least I can now judge between two sides of the story now

And - to reinforce your point about technology moving on quickly - this article https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2.../12/1900556116 gives some of the latest developments about water electrolysis to generate hydrogen for fuel cell use

[tc4332]

I thought they built these things to ensure the world kept turning.