Gregory's Server@ShadowJonathan because #nulear is bad and not profitable unless the state and thus society bankroll all the costs and the profits get privatized?
|
27 comments
Kevin Karhan :verified:
@karolherbst @ShadowJonathan all thermal powerplants radiate heat - no questions asked... It's just that nuclear is neither saving CO2 nor is it renewable nor safe. And the real costs are just absurdly high... 
karolherbst π§ π¦
@kkarhan @ShadowJonathan that's not the problem. Nuclear power converts latent energy stored in its fuel to thermal/kinetic energy added to the ecosystem.
Kevin Karhan :verified:
@karolherbst @ShadowJonathan that is inherent with all thermal powerplants - regardless if combustion, radioactive or molten rocks / salt are being used... Tho compared to the emissions of CO2, Methane and even Ammonia the acceleration of the greenhouse effect by additional water vapour is negligible...
karolherbst π§ π¦
@kkarhan @ShadowJonathan If the fuel to thermal powerplants are generated by moving kinetic/thermal energy from the ecosystem into it, you won't have that problem, e.g. hydrogen generated through renewables and water.
Kevin Karhan :verified:
@karolherbst @ShadowJonathan Yeah but that would basically only allow Wind and hydroelectric power, since even photovoltaic plates heat up and will often need cooling at the rear to not overheat.
karolherbst π§ π¦
@kkarhan @ShadowJonathan the point isn't they heat up, the point is how much energy they pump into the climate ecosystem. Solar converts incoming energy from the sun into electricity, which would otherwise heat up the ground. Nuclear fuel adds energy to the climate ecosystem (wind, heat, etc..) without taking it away from it first. Carbon emission reduce the amount of energy the earth can dissipate to space. Nuclear adds to the income side.
karolherbst π§ π¦
@empressEvora @kkarhan @ShadowJonathan It's not a major factor, but I've seen some studies claiming if we would replace all energy with nuclear and taking future needs into account it would heat up earth by more than 0.2 ΒΊC this century. It's not much, but also not entirely irrelevant.
karolherbst π§ π¦
@empressEvora @kkarhan @ShadowJonathan Also.. absolute numbers like that are entirely irrelevant. What matters is the relative amount of how much of the net difference we contribute to. If the earth absorbs 10 sixtillion joules, but release 10 sixtillion joules each year, us adding ~520 quintillion joules in a year is a problem as we cause more energy to stay in the system. What matters is how much nuclear energy contributes to the _difference_ of incoming and outgoing energy.
karolherbst π§ π¦ replied to karolherbst π§ π¦
@empressEvora @kkarhan @ShadowJonathan Anyway, we fight climate change by turning that balance _negative_ as we caused a positive energy balance in the past and have "pay it all back" Nuclear energy runs contrary to that goal.
Kevin Karhan :verified: replied to karolherbst π§ π¦
@karolherbst @empressEvora @ShadowJonathan well, it'll certainly increase the amount of heat energy... Furthermore the entire concept of nucpear power is unsustainable and the very finite supply of it should rather be used for the few yet critical applications one needs nurlcear material for...
karolherbst π§ π¦ replied to Kevin Karhan :verified:
@kkarhan @empressEvora @ShadowJonathan yeah.. I think the question is rather how long it takes. I think there are great innovations on the nuclear front trying to make it all more safe and more fuel efficient. And I could even see that some amount of energy production might stay nuclear. E.g. only using current nuclear waste as fuel to reduce the time we have to keep it stored securely. The problem just is, if we add energy, we also have to remove it and get to a negative balance. That's all.
Kevin Karhan :verified: replied to karolherbst π§ π¦
@karolherbst @empressEvora @ShadowJonathan I soncerely doubt we'll see that hapoen at all - not even talking about our lifetimes. Now Nuclear Fusion might ne a totally new level, cuz the first to master this technology will basically be able to make as much energy as they want as cheap as they want, thus control the world...
karolherbst π§ π¦ replied to Kevin Karhan :verified:
@kkarhan @empressEvora @ShadowJonathan nuclear fusion has the same problem in terms of energy balance. It converts energy stored in atoms into thermal and kinetic energy (directly or indirectly through electricity consumers) It's all fine to use it, but we also have to make sure our energy balance stays below 0 until we manage to cool down earth enough.
Kevin Karhan :verified: replied to karolherbst π§ π¦
@karolherbst @empressEvora @ShadowJonathan OFC that is ture, which is why I propose to harness the amount of energy that is inefitably hitting the planet instead of excess thermal output. Cuz that'll be more efficient and get us close to that desired amount...
Kevin Karhan :verified: replied to Evora (sad girl hours)
@empressEvora @karolherbst @ShadowJonathan that assumes state and corporations are completely seperate entities and not run by people - if not the same people. THAT WAS NEVER THE CASE! Far from it...
Kevin Karhan :verified: replied to Kevin Karhan :verified:
@empressEvora @karolherbst @ShadowJonathan The @EU_Commission doesn't even try to exert control over the #EU's #IT... I do agree in that #infrastructure like #energy, #transportation and #distribution grids should be owned by the public, and whether that's a state-owned enterprise, a ministry, a cooperative or whatever is more of a tool discussion.
Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: replied to Kevin Karhan :verified:
@kkarhan @karolherbst @ShadowJonathan harvesting sun rays leaves a lot on the table to never be recovered though. I would argue that allowing the sun to feed plants which can then be used to produce biofuels is a way to improve power density and reduce loss/waste. Plus a real farm is a lot nicer to look at then a solar farm.
Kevin Karhan :verified:
@karolherbst @ShadowJonathan Thus I'd say it would be more reasonale to just plaster a [liberated!] #WesternSahara full with #Solarthermal Powerplants and covert that energy into Methanol...
Kevin Karhan :verified:
@empressEvora @karolherbst @ShadowJonathan depends... One yould do non-moving parabolic mirror (don't need to be polished, simple sheetmetall wil ldo the trick) and just have a slit at the bottom of tue parabolic rail to let the sand fall through... The reason why even then this would work well is because of scaling effects in modern powerplant tech... And with the local abundance of power conversion - even at terrible efficiency - to Hydrogen and Methanol - is feadible.
Kevin Karhan :verified:
@empressEvora @karolherbst @ShadowJonathan Also no, you can't make offshore wind power that floats, tho there's huge amounts of shoreline wind power zmthat has yet to be tapped into... OFC that could be deployed on virtually any coastline since they tend to be windy enough... Same goes with solartgermal: Deployable in any warm to hot climate...
Evora (sad girl hours)
@kkarhan @karolherbst @ShadowJonathan even with parabolic mirrors and gutters youβd still need infrastructure to clean the mirrors. That requires water either through transport or generation. We see this in all current generation solar thermal plants. Also, you most definitely CAN build floating off shore wind generation. In fact there are already 3 floating off shore wind farms. Here is an example one.
Kevin Karhan :verified:
@empressEvora @karolherbst @ShadowJonathan You can just dimension and gematrically design said mirror gutters to not accumulate much sand if said particles are just flowing away. OFC one shouldn't try to build a solarthermal powerplant on top of shifting dunes - that would be stupid. The majority of desert is rocky tho, so maintenance should be minimal if not lower than photovoltaic panels since those would likely have fine sand sticking to the glass and said glass gets scratched up... |
@kkarhan @ShadowJonathan also it heats up the earth though much slower than Carbon emission do.