96
A renewable energy transition that doesn’t harm nature? It’s not just possible, it’s essential
(theconversation.com)
this post was submitted on 07 Jun 2024
96 points (99.0% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5316 readers
937 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
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
Just for comparison, solar waste vs fossil fuel waste
There's a reason that people don't treat this kind of concern as a major one.
I love this graph because what it illustrates is that instead of going with the option that has virtually no waste, nuclear, everyone is fine with ramping up one that still is making a rather concerning amount of waste.
Celebrating taking the second best option seems really dumb when the even better one is right there.
This doesn't actually say anything about nuclear waste volumes though
It wouldn't show up because nuclear waste is beyond miniscule and nearly every atom is accounted for. No other industry can claim that.
Hand-waving instead of numbers. Typical.
390,000 metric tons since nuclear was started. In 1954. It wouldn't even register a .5 on this chart.
It's fucking insulting you know so little about what I'm talking about yet still disregard it. I shouldn't need to hunt down something that should be readily apparent yet here I am.
Please be polite instead of hostile .
You're also only looking at spent fuel quantity and not the reactor parts and tailings which constitute the bulk of radioactive waste.
Handwaving the topic at hand to focus on tone policing. Typical.
Not really. Both solar and nuclear produce small amounts of waste compared with the fossil fuels industry. This makes them both reasonable choices from that perspective.
The problem with nuclear has always been cost.
The cost and waste per GW/H of power is also staggeringly different. Even if we took spent reactor parts into account for waste and calculated the cost, would it fall short for solar or wind? I haven't seen any data that would suggest renewables could compete with nuclear in terms of power generation per waste or cost, let alone beat it, but I'm willing to examine anything you put forth.
In fact, I've only ever seen the opposite. That nuclear has a superior ratio in nearly every metric and that's not considering where fusion could end up taking us.
New nuclear, as actually constructed, is in fact more expensive
If you use the metric of LCOE, sure, throwing a bunch of cheap solar panels all over the place can just barely be cheaper than the cost to produce them. However, the article even admits this doesn't include the nessesary use of batteries for renewables, assumes battery technologies will get cheaper and better, while disregarding alternatives. I have to still stress that even if I concede the point they're almost the same where solar just barely wins, the waste is nowhere near the same. The need for batteries is nowhere near the same. These are hurdles solar still faces that nuclear doesn't need to solve.
Photovolatic panels still generate thousands of times more waste than anything I've seen from nuclear and we don't have cheap enough batteries to be able to make arrays to support entire cities the way a nuclear plant can and does.
I get why renewables are attractive but I still don't see the downside to nuclear. The only valid point I've been given is "time to build" which yes, we should have started thirty years ago. Why not right now?
Solar pays for itself within the first 2-3 years, and lasts for decades. Batteries are cheap enough to do overnight storage at utility scale so that wind + solar + batteries do overnight power more cheaply than nuclear.
This leaves nuclear only able to maybe compete with longer-duration storage. Which is why nobody is building much.
If they last for decades, why is there so much ewaste for specifically photovolatic cells? Theoretically lasting decades, sure, but they seem to have a high chance of breaking.
I don't think there's a single real world instance of a city having batteries being able to sustain the load for the night without any added generation. That would be newsworthy and a massive win for renewables. They might get there eventually with sodium based batteries but that has yet to be seen.
If solar panels were discarded less and battery arrays could be cheaply made so that nuclear and coal weren't nessesary, I'd agree with you, but I haven't seen either of those things. They're "likely in the future" but by that time, we could make another nuclear power plant.
And all this without even considering fusion, which in my humble opinion, would replace renewables.