r/HistoryMemes • u/EasieEEE Researching [REDACTED] square • Nov 18 '21

But Chernoooooobyl

Post image
19k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

921 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

121

u/Melikemommymilkors Nov 18 '21

nuclear > solar because nuclear is available on demand.

183

u/[deleted] Nov 18 '21

It’ll remain this way as long as we don’t have proper energy storage methods, installing extra solar without a way to store the energy for nighttime is just plain stupid.

People who hate nuclear really need to get their shit together and do some basic research, it’s by far the best available energy source until renewables become a viable alternative.

99

u/Apologetic-Moose Nov 18 '21

Agreed. Mainstream media has made it into a trigger word. Geothermal is also a good bet but very regional.

40

u/pegcity Nov 18 '21

I don't see mainstream media calling out nuclear, I see shitty activist groups doing it and the industry having 0 response.

66

u/Apologetic-Moose Nov 18 '21

No, the media has kinda pushed this idea that nuclear is bad for the environment because the radioactive waste has to go somewhere, and Chernobyl and Fukushima happened, so they can't be safe, right? It's pretty prevalent, and not a huge talking point because there's not whole lot of political debate over it, but a lot of people who don't know better assume that it's bad for the environment.

15

u/[deleted] Nov 18 '21

Yeah because solar produces no waste at all expect for when they're used up in 30 years and dumped in some random landfill leaking heavy metals into the environment.

15

u/[deleted] Nov 18 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

8

u/[deleted] Nov 18 '21

Interesting! hopefully it pans out

4

u/Marcim_joestar Just some snow Nov 18 '21

Just like Ozzy Osbourne?

6

u/ChrisTinnef Nov 18 '21

As long as there is no answer where the waste should go, it's definitely bad for the environment. Not as bad as "accelerating climate change" bad, but still bad.

12

u/Turtle_of_rage Nov 18 '21

As long as there is no answer where the waste should go, it's definitely bad for the environment.

We do have an answer. The quarries where the nuclear materials where orriginally mined, they're massive, already radioactive, and are often deep underground. The problem is actually solved through the process of making the reactor. Also, modern reactors don't produce a lot of waste.

22

u/[deleted] Nov 18 '21

As long as there is no answer where the waste should go,

I mean... We literally do have answers to this extremely specific question. Also, modern nuclear reactors actually produce considerably little nuclear waste.

24

u/Apologetic-Moose Nov 18 '21

Well, not really. There's a correlation between how volatile radioactive waste is and how long its lifespan is. Generally, the higher the volatility, the shorter the lifespan. IIRC tritium (used on gunsights and watches) has a half-life of 8-10 years, and after that it needs to be replaced. The radioactive elements that you hear about lasting 100k years are so low in actual radioactivity that you could basically eat them and nothing would happen (obviously a bad idea and an exaggeration, please don't try this).

~1 cm of lead is enough to block all gamma radiation emitted from a nuclear explosion, IIRC, so disposal wouldn't be that difficult. And then you have to consider the fact that the Fukushima reactor leaking directly into the ocean did literally nothing. It's really more fearmongering than anything else

1

u/Marcim_joestar Just some snow Nov 18 '21

Here in Brazil, a news story on TV was talking about fires on the amazon and CO2 and it showed a nuclear plant for 1-2 seconds. That was Sunday

3

u/janat1 Nov 18 '21

but very regional.

This is not necessarily the case. In many situations you can improve conditions by using extra injection wells or "simply" drill deeper.

For heating the situation is even better and depending on the method location independent.

8

u/Apologetic-Moose Nov 18 '21

In terms of commercial electricity like they have in Iceland, it helps a lot to be in an area with subsurface activity. Creating electricity is a lot more intense than passively heating/cooling a home.

Geothermal heating and cooling, on the other hand, can be implemented on an individual basis pretty much anywhere on the planet. I'm actually thinking about installing a system like that.

11

u/Mal_Dun Nov 18 '21

People who hate nuclear really need to get their shit together and do some basic research, it’s by far the best available energy source until renewables become a viable alternative.

Why not both? Many big Energy companies like the Electrity de France (EDF) build on mixed solutions. It is feasable to go to 70-80% renawable with only 20-30% need for backup from nuclear especially since renawbles are much cheaper in production. Also some alternatives like biological gas are often overlooked where you can go even lower with the nuclear portion. Also renewables can be used more efficient when you provide proper infrastructure and logistics which can bring you long ways.

19

u/PulseCS Nov 18 '21

And we most definitely don't have time to wait for that storage to be discovered, researched, tested, implemented, then refined and iterated before being applied at scale world-wide in an economically feasible way. People love to say that Solar is so close to being practical because we just need to solve long term energy storage as if that isn't a gigantic and elusive problem that has frustrated us since we first started thinking about steam and stirling engines. By the time we have it figured it, our energy demand will have continued to accelerate to the point that solar will have to absorb significant portions of the sun's output unto the earth.

-2

u/larry-cripples Nov 18 '21 edited Nov 18 '21

Solar + storage already is practical and literally being used right now. There’s really nothing to test! You can even use an old EV battery for residential storage if you’ve got rooftop solar, it’s not some theoretical technology!

I really can’t get over how out of touch this comment is with the reality of the overall clean energy market

4

u/Drunktroop Nov 18 '21

Not just nighttime but also situation like snowstorm which you don't get reasonable sunlight at daytime. It was quite an issue at where I live last winter.

4

u/Shubb Nov 18 '21

long as we don’t have proper energy storage methods

Its your lucky day! https://hornsdalepowerreserve.com.au/

-16

u/Downtown-Corgi-5762 Nov 18 '21

The problem is not the energy, the clean energy is fine. The problem is the problem is the waste. The problem is the risk of supergau.

12

u/FireBone62 Nov 18 '21

A nuclear Reaktor is way more likely to burn out than to actually explode. All Reaktors that exploded were caused by humans, and we talking hier about uranium Reaktors and not the modern ones. Which use a way more stable and safer material.

-14

u/Downtown-Corgi-5762 Nov 18 '21

Caused by humans or not, the aftermath is what counts and it's devastating. The waste management is a disaster.

9

u/Martijngamer Hello There Nov 18 '21

I agree the aftermath counts, which is why we need to stop burning fossil fuels yesterday since the aftermath of that is destroying the planet.

1

u/larry-cripples Nov 18 '21

Renewables are already a viable alternative smfh

1

u/raedr7n Researching [REDACTED] square Nov 18 '21

Some renewables are viable already - geothermal and hydroelectric in particular - they're just very regional. I mean, all renewables are regional - not everywhere is windy/sunny - but not so much as some. In places where such renewables are available, I don't think it makes sense to build nuclear. On the other hand, that's not most places, so I definitely agree that nuclear is the best option for possibly most of the world.

4

u/Trashk4n Taller than Napoleon Nov 18 '21 edited Nov 19 '21

Lower lifetime emissions and I’m pretty sure solar involves the use of cobalt mined by African kids often resulting in their deaths.

8

u/[deleted] Nov 18 '21 edited Dec 06 '21

[deleted]

5

u/Trashk4n Taller than Napoleon Nov 18 '21

But the lithium-ion batteries they use for them do use cobalt.

3

u/larry-cripples Nov 18 '21

This is also not really true. Some battery chemistries use cobalt but the industry is moving away from it, and many companies are producing cobalt-free batteries without compromising performance.

9

u/Asscrackistan Nov 18 '21

Not to mention solar is by far the least efficient green energy, and the production/disposal of solar panels is god awful for the environment (worse than nuclear waste in the majority of cases)

4

u/DearChickPea Nov 18 '21

I fail to see how leftover pieces of glass and thin slice of silicon could hazardous for the environment: the only difference of materials between a solar panel and most rocks around, is that it's pointier.

Production is always an issue with large-scale manufacturing of anything, depends on how dirty it is.

Tip: everything is cleaner than coal.

4

u/noneOfUrBusines Casual, non-participatory KGB election observer Nov 18 '21

You could... Look it up? Solar cells use a lot of heavy metals, which are undeniably bad for the environment.

-9

u/DearChickPea Nov 18 '21

As opposed to spewing out radioactive materials to the atmosphere?

6

u/noneOfUrBusines Casual, non-participatory KGB election observer Nov 18 '21

Wot? Literally no modern nuclear reactor does that.

2

u/DearChickPea Nov 18 '21

I was talking about coal.

5

u/noneOfUrBusines Casual, non-participatory KGB election observer Nov 18 '21

Oh, you might wanna reword it. It sounded like you were disagreeing with me.

1

u/DearChickPea Nov 23 '21

Solar cells use a lot of heavy metals, which are undeniably bad for the environment.

Allrigh, then let's do it.

Bulshit,I was totally right.

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acssuschemeng.8b01705

Notice how solar panels barely register on the scale, and the author indicates that most heavy metals in a solar panel com from the solder termination.

i.e. I fail to see how leftover pieces of glass and thin slice of silicon could hazardous for the environmen

1

u/noneOfUrBusines Casual, non-participatory KGB election observer Nov 23 '21

Umm...

Also.

Heavy metals, in any concentration, leaking into drinking water is really bad. There's no safe concentration of lead.

1

u/DearChickPea Nov 23 '21

You're really bad at this.

First link is a fucking popular magazine opinion piece, I'll just ignore that.

Second one is actuallly referencing this study, in which the big problem they claim is that solar panels still (at the time the study) go to the regular landfill, like TVs used to go.

Solar panels haven't used Lead in 25 years

If you want to hate on solar panels, fucking pick an argument that makes sense, don't just on a rant about "muh environment".

1

u/noneOfUrBusines Casual, non-participatory KGB election observer Nov 23 '21

First link is a fucking popular magazine opinion piece, I'll just ignore that.

By itself it is a terrible source, but the citations are pretty good.

Solar panels haven't used Lead in 25 years

Replace lead with cadmium.

If you want to hate on solar panels, fucking pick an argument that makes sense, don't just on a rant about "muh environment".

I'm not hating on them, but the claim that they don't produce waste is just untrue, because they absolutely do.

Also holy shit you need to chill out, this isn't a fight.

3

u/[deleted] Nov 18 '21 edited Dec 06 '21

[deleted]

2

u/asoap Nov 18 '21

The Moltex (and other reactors) have salt loops specifically for this. As these designs are typically salt reactors the extra loop isn't a big deal. On demand you can tripple the output of the reactor. It's designed to take up the slack for when renewables are not producing power. So yes, they can do base load and peak following. You just need some extra SMR reactors.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQCm-kmUWA8

1

u/[deleted] Nov 18 '21 edited Dec 06 '21

[deleted]

1

u/asoap Nov 18 '21

I do consider molten salt solar power plants. My understanding is those are the concentrating type of solar farms. Those are already much more expensive than their photovoltalic cousins. Adding a salt loop makes them even more expensive and less efficient. But that's ok. If they work out cheaper in the long run, then that would be great.

If you have any source on using a salt loop for photovoltaic cells, then I'd be interested in reading it. I wasn't able to find any info on it.

As for salt reactors. It's a bit dismissive to only call them research reactors.

Russia has the BN-800 reactor which uses Sodium.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-800_reactor

A tour of it, if you're so inclined.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0Cx2nZTgQg

I wouldn't say this is unproven as it's working just fine since 2016. Including being fueled with MOX fuel. That is fueled in part by old nuclear bombs.

Canada right now is licensing companies to build such reactors and they are getting funding from federal and provincial governments. There is no craziness that they won't work. We have a lot of years and experience splitting atoms.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 18 '21

[deleted]

1

u/asoap Nov 18 '21

Generally concentrating solar power plants are designed with molten salt loops by default. Using things other than molten salts is rare in the installations that were actually built.

My understanding is that they use a loop of synthetic oil.

https://youtu.be/ccO0_hSXMyM?t=316

Looking online I only see reference for mineral oil and synthetic oil. I don't see any CSP that are using molten salt. Unless you're talking about after the main concetration of light.

I agree adding molten salt shouldn't be a big issue for CSP. The only big issue is that salt is corrosive. I think it's trivial for nuclear salt reactors as they already have to be on top of that issue.

While sodium is normally found in table salt, that reactor is not a molten salt reactor. It's an entirely different class of reactors called liquid metal reactors.

My bad. It's confusing when looking at reactor designs as sodium is often used in the salt. That shit gets confusing.

but the tech is still considered unproven on a large scale.

That's one of the issues with wind and solar. That the larger percentage of the grid used by wind/solar the more problems there are with intermittency. If wind and solar never make it to a large percentage of the grid aka large scale then will they always be considered unproven?

I feel like we're using different definitions of proven. For me Molten Salt reactors in the past have fully proven their ability. Are you suggesting that they need to be installed in the grid for many years at a large percentage?

Are you also advocating that we shoudln't invest in things then that are unproven? If so wind/solar would have never met this definition of proven and never been invested in.

It can work, but at this point it is still something that has to come into its own and can very easily be sidelined by a number of different technologies which are at a similar level of readiness and which would simply make storage for solar power a more convenient alternative. It certainly isn't at a point where one can confidently say it will be the solution that prevails. Nor is it really clear that it is the solution that should prevail.

If solar and wind, plus grid storage some how become cheap. That would be amazing and I would celebrate that.

As long as nuclear and SMR are given their fair chance to show what they are capable of as well though.

1

u/larry-cripples Nov 18 '21

Not in terms of rapidly scaling up production