this post was submitted on 01 Jun 2024
394 points (97.6% liked)
Technology
59429 readers
2992 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Edit: Changed introductory wording to be less belligerent. I am sorry if I have caused a significant level of offense.
~~Just wait for the nuclear shills to flood in and claim that nuclear fission is a sustainable and necessary form of power generation.~~ Some people claim that nuclear fission is a sustainable and necessary form of power generation. It is not. Uranium extraction devastates entire landscapes, the construction of nuclear power plants is too expensive (even for SMRs, as the article explains), ergo electricity prices will climb, it is a hugely wasteful use of so many tonnes of concrete (concrete manufacturing is heavy on the environment too), it creates waste that will still haunt us for hundreds of thousands of years (finding geological structures that are guaranteed to be stable that long is difficult), and relative to the initial construction and set-up effort, they don't provide that much energy. We already have methods that can provide us plenty enough electricity that are entirely sustainable by leveraging large-scale atmospheric aerodynamics as well as the largest nuclear fusion reactor at our disposal (the sun). There's simply no need to go nuclear.
Brought to you by fossil fuel propaganda filtered through renewable resource advocates who would also lose out to nuclear energy.
I hate that the conversation is happening on these terms. I hate that we have a bunch of opinionated online "teams" on this issue.
Hey, you know what we need? All of it. Any sort of energy generation that lowers atmospheric emissions in any way we do need. The concept of "nuclear shills" shouldn't exist, the concept of "solar shills" or "hydrogen shills" or "fossil fuel shills" shouldn't exist. The entire conversation is a PR battle by energy corps to get people to buy into marketing so they can get governments to back popular choices so they can get expensive contracts for large infrastructure work.
I hate that we have online keyboard warriors overrepresenting the challenges of one of the contributors to lowering emissions while underrepresenting the challenges of others. Hey, do you think nighttime generation and storage is an issue? Maybe installation costs for domestic solar generation, the state of the grid or the uneven distribution of solar power yields on different territories? Because I do.
And I do think cost and build times for nuclear generators are a problem (which makes it confusing that some countries are dismantling plants that seem to be working safely and are within their expected lifespan, but I digress).
And I do think the impact of hydroelectric power in nearby areas is a problem.
And I do think the open questions for geothermal are a problem.
And I do think the issues with cost, storage and dirty generation of hydrogen are a problem.
And I do think we should be working on all of that. At once. This isn't kids arguing about which game console is better on the backyard, this is a massive existential issue, and would be even if we weren't dealing with a climate change ticking bomb. This report? It's bad news. Any report that tells us any of the ideas we have for weaning off fossil fuels is not working as well as we expected is bad news. Can we all get with that program?
All good points, and I’m all for pretty much any technological research, but
Thorium is another form of fission generation that has not been commercialized yet. In the real world, maybe it will be better, or maybe it won’t. But fission generation already takes too long to build out, so why switch lanes to a different form of fission generation that also needs more time and money to be commercialized? Nuclear uranium fission generation had its growing pains over the years, as the technology found challenges to address and areas to improve, but thorium has not yet gotten far enough to run into those so there will be additional challenges requiring time, money, further development
If those were decades ago when the future was bright for fission technology, I’d be all over this. However the future is dark and cloudy for fission generation, nightfall may be approaching. The advantages of thorium are not enough to shine a new light, there’s not enough room for improvement to save fission generation, this is just an expensive detour.
I have as much of a handle on the challenges of small thorium generators as I do on the costs and challenges of generation and containment of green hydrogen or the solutions for storage of solar power. That is to say, I know there are challenges, I roughly understand what they are and I know we don't know how to fix them yet. At least not beyond a number of companies that have invested a lot on doing that saying they're on track to do that and a bunch of people saying that no they aren't.
I don't know why I need to be "all over" any of this in any way. I know that we need to solve the challenges on multiple of those technologies, and we need it for ten years ago. The reasonable approach seems to use all of these as they become available based on their total emissions and cost. Anything else seems like either irresponsible idle tribalism or disinformation. Hell, in any case where the least amount of emissions is fossil fuels... well, you do fossil fuels. This is not about ideology at this point.
You are still doing the thing, just like the other guys. I keep wishing people would stop doing the thing.
This is nonsense. Like someone else said we will need some kind of nuclear power for future space exploration. There are parts of the world that are dark for six months of the year, and plenty of places that don't get enough light for solar to be practical.
Most renewable sources are not consistent enough to be used by themselves, and battery storage isn't practical with current technology. Then there are the concerns with hydro power and biomass and how that affects the environment. I have even been told by leftists that biomass shouldn't be installed as it destroys too many native forests.
Of course the actual best solution is one we don't have the technology for yet: things like nuclear fusion or neutrino capture.
For the record, I disagree with you both and this narrative is also part of the problem in my book. Screw the futurism and longermism of "we need nuclear power for space exploration". We're not talking about that. We're talking about mitigating runaway climate effects and filling the blanks of an alternate energy mix by using complementary tech.
Absolutely let's keep working on nuclear power. Absolutely let's keep working on battery storage, and potential energy storage and thermal storage and wind and geothermal and whatever else we can come up with. And absolutely let's abandon whatever doesn't work or is made obsolete, starting with no longer burning hydrocarbons as soon as we can stop.
There's this air of erudite dilettantism about this chatter that just pisses me off. People sitting by and idly projecting their sci-fi fantasies about colonizing planets or about a fully solar powered planet and feeling smart about it. Given the short-term, impending human cost of this issue, both for climate reasons and for energy scarcity reasons, that just feels gross at this point.
What do you disagree with me? I was trying to back you up up here saying that yes we need nuclear in addition to all the other technologies. I am not saying that you shouldn't use solar, just that it isn't applicable everywhere on earth.
You should be talking about that. After all climate change is also a future problem. Staying on a single planet isn't safe even if you eradicate climate change, war, disease, and just about everything else. There is pretty much nothing stopping a gamma ray burst or stray blackhole, or any number of other things from killing everyone on this planet. Like yeah climate change is a high priority, but it doesn't make all other issues go away.
Look, I'm just trying to impress something very specific here and I can tell I'm not getting through.
I'm not here to call out people arguing for or against one or another type of energy generation. I'm complaining about the discourse about this being about long term hypotheticals and optimal solutions when we should be in emergency mode.
It's like we're in a burning building and people are having arguments about the cost per year of different types of fire extinguishers. But if I make this point about someone criticising nuclear power it comes across as me "siding" or "shilling" for nuclear power, same if I do it when someone argues against solar power.
But I'm neither. I'm arguing for practicality and immediate action. Because we need it now, not because I just finished reading the Dune books and have some really neat ideas about generation ships.
Remind me what type of thinking leads to climate change, and pretty much every pollution issue we have now? Short term thinking that didn't take into account long term consequences. If we aren't careful we could actually make things worse by chasing things like lithium battery technology.
Trying to come up with short term solutions to climate changes is fine, but you have to thinking about the long term as well.
I also don't think you give enough credit to the people who are criticising nuclear, they are talking about the short term. "Renewables" are cheaper in the short term. The thing is solar panels, wind turbines, and so on is that they don't last forever, recycling the equipment is problematic, and manufacturing them is an environmental crisis in its own right.
Nuclear in its current form is a medium term solution with its own shortcomings around waste storage, and the materials needed to construct and fuel a reactor.
This is all still probably better than fossil fuels but we are talking about the difference between getting shot (fossil fuels) or getting stabbed (nuclear/"renewables").
Immediate action? We needed yesterday's action, but rushing things today isn't going to make up for it. In fact probably the best thing you can do right now is stop having kids. Bring the population down. Ideally this needed doing decades ago too. If we don't do it then nature will do it for us, which is probably inevitable at this point anyway.
And I was one of those someone else’s, but in the context of calling out that there’s likely little in common.
That’s a choice: too many less developed countries still clear native forest for agriculture, so expanding agriculture has a downside . ITs something those countries need to take care of regardless, just to feed their people.
This is a failure of policy and governance, not technology
The problem is that "both" isn't a valid option unless a country has unlimited finances.
Otherwise you have to decide on what's the most feasible option and then renewables win big time
I sometimes feel as if the current push for atomic is from the fossil-lobby as they are aware that it either works and they get 10-20 more years to sell oil until the reactors are built - and even if it doesn't work out it still will slow down rollout of renewables
If you have 100 billion to spend on energy producing you have to choose if you want to go all-in with one source or split it up which would move the end of fossil fuels Back further
Not to mention having to buy the radioactive materials from dictatorships and having problems to cool down the reactors with rising temperatures and rivers running dry
I just don't see how atomic isn't a huge gamble that can backfire hard (and I'm not even talking about catastrophic events like Fukushima)
You keep doing the thing. The thing sucks. Please stop.
For one, no, that's not how that works. Money is already being spent in energy generation, mostly towards oil and gas. This isn't your weekly takeout budget.
It's also not a race towards infinite energy where you dump money to make the infinite energy bar go up. Energy generation will continue to be costly and have problems, regardless of the mix of options chosen. There is simply no single silver bullet. Which is, presumably why we already don't go "all-in" on one energy source, which is just about the dumbest possible plan. Energy diversification is absolutely part of this, regardless of where the majority of the output is coming from.
So please stop it. Genuinely stop it. This isn't a zero sum game, it's about finding the mix of energy sources that gets you less killed in the next century or so. Not finding a single source, not backing a single winning horse, not having your stupid team you support for either dumb Internet reasons or disingenuous trolling reasons win.
If we are thinking of the next century then these discussions are very relevant. A century is a long time. We don't actually have that long for some of these problems though.
Not really, but also kinda. The biggest exporters of ore are Kazakhstan, Namibia, Canada, and Australia.
The only major producers that aren't American puppets stripping themselves of resources to maintain western hegemony are Russia, Niger, China, and India, who total less than 15%.
I wouldn't call Russia or India not-dictatorships, but I don't see them using US weapons and training to put down a restive population and keep the resources and money flowing out like Kazakstan.
Most countries have unlimited finances. They only have limited real resources like labor, concrete, copper, glass, etc. The fact that we still don't understand this and behave as if the metadata of the economy accurately describes reality puts artificial brakes on the solutions of many problems, climate being one of them.
The problem is that if a country treats money as unlimited and without a cost then inflation will mirror that and people in that country will lose their savings, their job will not pay for their bills anymore and so on
It's not as simple as "just spend more"...
Inflation is a symptom of the lack of some real resource. There are many parts of the economies of many countries where there's unused production capacity which simply "turns more natural resources into more stuff" if more money enters that part of the economy, without producing inflation. It's not "just spend more", it's "spend as much as you can on things that you want done, which aren't limited by real resources."
I found Randall Wray's lectures on the topic to be eye-opening. If what I wrote sounds strange, and it might, I highly recommend watching some of them. There are a few recordings on YouTube.