The Remarkable Progress of Renewable Energy

[bilby]

I may be badly informed in general, but there was no mention of environmental damage at all in your arithmetic.

Environmental damage from mining is presumably roughly proportional to the amount of material mined.

Do you have any reason to think that's not true of mining to produce the materials that go into solar panels and solar farms?

 

[laughing dog]

I may be badly informed in general, but there was no mention of environmental damage at all in your arithmetic.

Environmental damage from mining is presumably roughly proportional to the amount of material mined.

Do you have any reason to think that's not true of mining to produce the materials that go into solar panels and solar farms?

I think the presumption of “roughly proportional” while reasonable is unsatisfying to me.

 

[Toni]

I’ve never advocated for only solar energy.

Then feel free to amend my last paragraph to read:

The irony is that those who claim, counterfactually, that nuclear power is too dangerous and environmentally damaging, are advocating for an alternatives that is are far more dangerous, and far more environmentally damaging.

It changes not one single significant part of my argument, and remains true in both singular and plural versions.

And then, there is reality.

 

[Toni]

There have been individual incidents with coal that killed more than the lifetime record for nuclear. Click to expand... More people died in the solar power industry just in the USA in the last ten years, than have died in the nuclear power industry worldwide since it began in the 1950s.

That is a counter intuitive result for any comparison of technologies.

Not if you understand the subject, it's not.

I’m interested in the details, would you mind providing a source?

Sure:
https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/magazines/bulletin/bull21-1/21104091117.pdf

There are about five deaths per year in the US solar power industry. The confirmed death toll from nuclear power accidents is 31, all at Chernobyl.

Of course, the actual death toll from Chernobyl, including later deaths from cancers, could be as high as a hundred, so maybe the US solar industry needs two decades to match nuclear's global, all time figure.

And plenty of sources put the toll in the thousands, but such wild speculation founders on the absence of detectable excess deaths - as we saw during Covid, it's not actually possible to hide thousands of deaths from a particular cause by underreporting, because the "excess deaths" give the game away.

Ultimately the question is pointless - it's clear that both nuclear and solar are both so safe that it's hard to measure a death rate for either.

How Many Cancers Did Chernobyl Really Cause?—Updated Version

This is an update of my April 7 post on cancers resulting from Chernobyl—this post includes more detailed information and a more recent estimate of the total radioactive dose from the Chernobyl nuclear accident. There is a lot of confusion about how many excess cancer deaths will likely result from

blog.ucs.org

It is estimated that at least 53,000 additional cases of cancer and 27,000 deaths from cancer resulted or will result from the accident at Chernobyl. As you know, cancer can take many years to be detectable. At the same time, detection and treatment of cancer is much improved since Chernobyl, doubtless increasing the number of cases detected and reducing the number of deaths.

 

[Bronzeage]

What are they going to produce that can be sold at a price to cover expenses?

AI capability for one thing. Seems to be the anticipated need right now.
But reliable, useable energy is always a commodity.

One would hope an AI data center will have AI capability, but can it be sold at a profit in a market of competing centers? Any industry in a competitive market with low marginal cost of production faces high pressure to lower prices with the hope of increasing market share.

 

[Elixir]

but can it be sold at a profit in a market of competing centers?

Probably, but only if the others also have practically unlimited 24/7 juice without effecting grid balances. Tech like OKLO’s can (I hope) eventually partner with a whole spectrum of high energy demand applications.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Geothermal works but is very limited. There's only a few areas with enough underground heat to tap. We could build better ways to tap it but that doesn't produce more to tap.

No it's not. It is considered viable even in West Virginia and Pennsylvania.
I know you've read at least some of what I have posted in the Climate Changed and The Remarkable Progress of Renewable Energy threads. I don't know why you persist with this "very limited" claim.
Enhanced geothermal (fracking in a closed loop system) is viable, abundant, bipartisan, federally funded, storable, easily throttled, available 24 hours a day.

IEA report

 

[ZiprHead]

I find it hard to believe that the mining involved to get the materials to build, operate and maintain a nuclear power plant are less environmentally damaging than the mining to build, operate and maintain solar energy.

There have been individual incidents with coal that killed more than the lifetime record for nuclear.

More people died in the solar power industry just in the USA in the last ten years, than have died in the nuclear power industry worldwide since it began in the 1950s.

That is a counter intuitive result for any comparison of technologies. I’m interested in the details, would you mind providing a source?

I remember looking that up and yes - it looks true or very close to it. Including Fukushima, Chernobyl, Three Mile Islad snd all the scary stuff.
All that scary stuff is overwhelmed by Joe the linesman who touched a hot lead, crashed a helicopter or fell off a tower. He only made the local paper and 15 seconds on local TV news.

Did people not die in the construction of those massive nuclear plants? If a lineman touches a hot lead does it make a difference if the power going through that lead is generated by fossil fuels or nuclear? How about the mining of the fissionable material?

Uranium mining poses dangers to human health, primarily through radiation exposure leading to lung cancer from inhaling radon gas and its radioactive decay products, and kidney damage from ingesting uranium compounds. It also causes environmental hazards by generating long-lasting radioactive waste that can contaminate soil, surface water, and groundwater, threatening wildlife and human communities. Historical mining practices left behind abandoned waste piles, contaminating water sources and disproportionately impacting Indigenous communities.

 

[robnisch]

Geothermal works but is very limited. There's only a few areas with enough underground heat to tap. We could build better ways to tap it but that doesn't produce more to tap.

No it's not. It is considered viable even in West Virginia and Pennsylvania.
I know you've read at least some of what I have posted in the Climate Changed and The Remarkable Progress of Renewable Energy threads. I don't know why you persist with this "very limited" claim.
Enhanced geothermal (fracking in a closed loop system) is viable, abundant, bipartisan, federally funded, storable, easily throttled, available 24 hours a day.
View attachment 52367
IEA report

I went to school in Klamath Falls. The campus was heated by geothermal. Many homes in town used it. The main problem was the mineral build-up in the pipes. It did not produce any power but reduced the need for electricity.

 

[bilby]

I may be badly informed in general, but there was no mention of environmental damage at all in your arithmetic.

Environmental damage from mining is presumably roughly proportional to the amount of material mined.

Do you have any reason to think that's not true of mining to produce the materials that go into solar panels and solar farms?

I think the presumption of “roughly proportional” while reasonable is unsatisfying to me.

Then feel free to look more deeply into the topic.

Your feelings and beliefs are not relevant.

 

[bilby]

I’ve never advocated for only solar energy.

Then feel free to amend my last paragraph to read:

The irony is that those who claim, counterfactually, that nuclear power is too dangerous and environmentally damaging, are advocating for an alternatives that is are far more dangerous, and far more environmentally damaging.

It changes not one single significant part of my argument, and remains true in both singular and plural versions.

And then, there is reality.

Please feel free to provide any evidence you can find that refutes my claim.

I'll wait.

 

[bilby]

It is estimated that at least 53,000 additional cases of cancer and 27,000 deaths from cancer resulted or will result from the accident at Chernobyl.

And, as I pointed out, those "estimates" are nonsense:

And plenty of sources put the toll in the thousands, but such wild speculation founders on the absence of detectable excess deaths - as we saw during Covid, it's not actually possible to hide thousands of deaths from a particular cause by underreporting, because the "excess deaths" give the game away.

By the way, 27,000 deaths is roughly the number of coal related deaths every year.

Chernobyl wasn't a particularly large industrial accident; The Bophal disaster that same year was on a similar scale, but oddly nobody is still banging on about it, despite the fact that chemical industry disasters still occur regularly, while nuclear power has only ever had that one fatal accident in its entire history.

https://thoughtscapism.com/2019/05/08/worlds-worst-energy-accidents-in-environmental-perspective/

Even if we accepted the insane figures "estimated" by Greenpeace, Nuclear power would still be far safer than any viable alternative. Solar and wind are roughly comparably safe, but storage isn't, and those technologies require storage in order to be viable.

 

[laughing dog]

I may be badly informed in general, but there was no mention of environmental damage at all in your arithmetic.

Environmental damage from mining is presumably roughly proportional to the amount of material mined.

Do you have any reason to think that's not true of mining to produce the materials that go into solar panels and solar farms?

I think the presumption of “roughly proportional” while reasonable is unsatisfying to me.

Then feel free to look more deeply into the topic.

Your feelings and beliefs are not relevant.

Feelings and beliefs help frame how we look at the world, so they are relevant to me.

 

[bilby]

Did people not die in the construction of those massive nuclear plants?

Generally not. Nuclear plant construction has very low accident rates compared to other construction projects.

 

[bilby]

How about the mining of the fissionable material?

The amount of fissionable material required is tiny.

 

[bilby]

Feelings and beliefs help frame how we look at the world, so they are relevant to me.

You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

 

[Toni]

It is estimated that at least 53,000 additional cases of cancer and 27,000 deaths from cancer resulted or will result from the accident at Chernobyl.

And, as I pointed out, those "estimates" are nonsense:

And plenty of sources put the toll in the thousands, but such wild speculation founders on the absence of detectable excess deaths - as we saw during Covid, it's not actually possible to hide thousands of deaths from a particular cause by underreporting, because the "excess deaths" give the game away.

By the way, 27,000 deaths is roughly the number of coal related deaths every year.

Chernobyl wasn't a particularly large industrial accident; The Bophal disaster that same year was on a similar scale, but oddly nobody is still banging on about it, despite the fact that chemical industry disasters still occur regularly, while nuclear power has only ever had that one fatal accident in its entire history.

https://thoughtscapism.com/2019/05/08/worlds-worst-energy-accidents-in-environmental-perspective/

Even if we accepted the insane figures "estimated" by Greenpeace, Nuclear power would still be far safer than any viable alternative. Solar and wind are roughly comparably safe, but storage isn't, and those technologies require storage in order to be viable.

Where on earth did you think I advocated for coal?

I trust my sources.

 

[Toni]

Feelings and beliefs help frame how we look at the world, so they are relevant to me.

You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

You think you are.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Feelings and beliefs help frame how we look at the world, so they are relevant to me.

You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

Politics isn't purely a rational thing though, much of it is feelings based and heavy with biases, what kind of upbringing we had, etc. The kind of world anyone desires isn't based on fact but feelings, and whether someone is a psychopath or not.

 

[bilby]

Where on earth did you think I advocated for coal?

I don't think you did. Why do you think I think you did?

Coal is how most electricity was generated throughout the history of electricity generation.

Anyone who successfully opposes any technology (other than coal) for electricity generation, at least until very recently, is going to cause more use of coal, whether or not they know it, or like it. More recently, they might get more gas burned instead - that's better, but not a lot better.

Advocating for intermittent power (wind and solar) also has the effect of causing more gas to be burned. That's bad for the planet, and good for such charming individuals as Mad Vlad Putin.

Unintended consequences are consequences even when you don't like them.