Nuclear energy is better than solar

[Gamma Male]

Lot's of environmentalists would support solar energy as our primary source of energy and denounce nuclear as dangerous or environmentally unfriendly. This is false, and frankly dangerous, since nuclear energy is one of our biggest assets in the fight against climate change and pollution, and one that we can't really afford to waste.


How could nuclear be more environmentally friendly than solar? Nuclear produces loads of nasty toxic waste and solar doesn't produce any waste at all, right? Wrong.


Research on electricity generation and land use (1 (https://www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/dl/2036_1358_LP2010-ch05-Alternative-Enegry-Sources-and-Land-Use.pdf)), estimates that solar power to produce 100% of world electricity generation would require 5,500,000,000,000 square meters (5.5 x 10^12 m^2).

Even with thorough research, this is a number that has to be reached with a number of assumptions. Whether the panels are produced properly, whether they are functioning at their maximum efficiencies, whether they are appropriately maintained, and whether the weather is behaving and there is not an unusually cloudy year. All of these decrease production significantly. Solar panel lifetimes are about 15-30 years. We will conservatively assume that the solar panel electricity production is at its maximum production over its entire lifetime, a full 30 years.

Assuming that the land use is the approximate area of the solar panels, and that the panels are a minimum of 1 inch thick (2.54 cm), the volume of PV panels as waste would be 139,700,000,000 cubic meters.

Used nuclear fuel produced by all US reactors is 2,000 metric tons annually. This is about 100 cubic meters per year. Multiplying the amount of US nuclear electricity production to produce the same amount as worldwide electricity production (data from EIA), this becomes about 37,000 cubic meters worldwide per year. After the same 30 years, a nuclear powered world would produce 2,220,000 cubic meters of used fuel.

This means that a solar powered world produces 63,000 times the waste of a nuclear powered world.

Yes, there is the potential for both to be recycled. But there would be significant energy lost in recycling solar panels, unlike nuclear waste where energy is actually produced from recycling.

How to illustrate this? Nuclear waste after 30 years of powering the whole world would take up roughly 1.5 "Panamax" sized container ships (the largest container ships that can go through the Panama canal). Solar waste would take roughly 95,000 Panamax ships.



But what about Fukishima? Isn't nuclear power dangerous?

Well, maybe nuclear power from the 60's was dangerous. Maybe nuclear power from type II reactors was dangerous. But with new type III reactors, that's no longer any risk. Nuclear meltdowns can still happen, but unlike with Chernobyl(a type II reactor) the reactor core itself would not be exposed to the environment, so all of the radioactive debris that would result from such an event would be contained within the reactor and easily cleaned up.


And as for efficiency and energy density, well, I'll just let the following image do the talking. (the bar on the far right is uranium, the bars on the left are oil, natural gas, etc)
http://www.cleanenergyinsight.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/all_density.jpg

[Capto]

I'm gonna hop on a thoriumwank.

Also what's a Fukishima?

[RickMason]

In the economic realm both have some kind of sense though I'd draw line on both of them since there is disadvantage to both looking at the environment costs and the area of usage.

Solar power has sense in places with a lot of heat and sunlight (Chile or Sahara), nuclear power has its controversy, but one thing remains: The Uranium supply will be gone in a century and its waste will stay for a little bit longer.

How about geothermal power?... Big investment, but no pollution? If Japan used Mount Fuji there would be no need for Fukushima (faulty design if you ask about the incident, but that could happen anywhere).

[Capto]

There's absolutely no way we'd use Fuji.

Maybe the Izu Islands or Sakurajima, but not Fuji.

[Horatio Nelson]

Lot's of environmentalists would support solar energy as our primary source of energy and denounce nuclear as dangerous or environmentally unfriendly. This is false, and frankly dangerous, since nuclear energy is one of our biggest assets in the fight against climate change and pollution, and one that we can't really afford to waste.


How could nuclear be more environmentally friendly than solar? Nuclear produces loads of nasty toxic waste and solar doesn't produce any waste at all, right? Wrong.





But what about Fukishima? Isn't nuclear power dangerous?

Well, maybe nuclear power from the 60's was dangerous. Maybe nuclear power from type II reactors was dangerous. But with new type III reactors, that's no longer any risk. Nuclear meltdowns can still happen, but unlike with Chernobyl(a type II reactor) the reactor core itself would not be exposed to the environment, so all of the radioactive debris that would result from such an event would be contained within the reactor and easily cleaned up.


And as for efficiency and energy density, well, I'll just let the following image do the talking. (the bar on the far right is uranium, the bars on the left are oil, natural gas, etc)
image (http://www.cleanenergyinsight.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/all_density.jpg)

I completely agree. Nuclear energy is much more efficient than solar. The amount of land required (as your article illustrated) to put enough panels on is insane. The way things are moving forward, I highly doubt we'll see another reactor related problem anytime soon.

I'm gonna hop on a thoriumwank.

Also what's a Fukishima?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/17/world/asia/japan-earthquake---tsunami-fast-facts/

[Gamma Male]

The Uranium supply will be gone in a century and its waste will stay for a little bit longer.
Please provide evidence to support this claim.
How about geothermal power?... Big investment, but no pollution?

Geothermal energy is a great power source buy due to the high costs and the fact that it can't always work everywhere, It's unlikely it'll ever become our primary source of energy.

[HououinKiyoma]

The secret is getting the tech to do nuclear fusion instead of the fission done now..

[Capto]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/17/world/asia/japan-earthquake---tsunami-fast-facts/

That appears to be related to Fukushima. What I asked was 'what's a Fukishima'?

[Dennis98]

Solar energy is expensive and it produces less energy than nuclear . Nuclear energy isn't cheap at all , but it is way cheaper than solar , and it produces more energy , plus , you can develop nuclear weapons or use depleted uranium for military purposes . Solar energy also needs more space than nuclear , for example , you need thousands of solar panels and thousands of km2 of space for little energy , on other side , you need some space like for building for nuclear power plant . But nuclear disposal is extremely dangerous , especially its storing . Shame is that solar and geothermal energies are still luxury for most of countries ..

[Vlerchan]

Please provide evidence to support this claim.
The generation of nuclear electricity uses uranium (composed of two isotopes: U-235 and U-238) that is a non-renewable resource. The nuclear reactors under the current technology are burner reactors that use U-235 to generate enriched uranium. U 235 is not abundant, accounting for only 0.7 percent of the naturally occurring uranium. If the current technology is used, the world’s total recoverable uranium would provide an energy supply that amounts to 150 billion tons of coal equivalent. Under the current rate of production, it could last 120 years. However, if nuclear energy is to be relied upon as the sole source of electricity production, the rate of production would have to be increased by six times and the remaining uranium can only last about 20 years. [...]

Since the breeder reactor uses much less U-235, if successful it could increase the potential energy supply that can be derived from the world’s uranium up to seven trillion tons of coal equivalent. [...] As the world’s total energy demand by 2100 would be 6-7 times as much as today (or approximately 120-140 billion tons of coal equivalent a year), the world’s remaining uranium could [still] only support the world economy for about 50 years.

http://content.csbs.utah.edu/~mli/CV/UTAH_2007_05.pdf

If we're going to go nuclear then it will need to be Fusion.

Though I do think declaring a one-size fits all approach to the energy problem is a good idea. I don't have a problem with diversification across a number of sources depending on what suits a given region best.

[NilnocK]

Yes nuclear power is better. Right now its the best environmentally friendly method we have. However, it is too cost prohibitive to use en masse or on a global scale given what the financial state of other countries is.

[Lovelife090994]

Nuclear power creates so much power but when it fails in a meltdown, the effects are catastrophic for centuries. Uranium is not common on Earth and the isotope needed is rare and running out. If humans want to move forward then we need to harness the energy of the Earth and or look into to fusion not fission.

[HououinKiyoma]

That appears to be related to Fukushima. What I asked was 'what's a Fukishima'?

He meant another incident like Fukushima or Chernobyl...

[Vlerchan]

http://media.gotraffic.net/images/iQYuKSosjb3U/v16/-1x-1.jpg

:)

[Miserabilia]

I've always been a huge supporter of nuclear energy.
Te only argument against it is "muh safety" and more based on paranoia than truth, like the way so many people are afraid of airplanes because of the occasional fail.
If nuclear energy becomes more common, there'd also be more time and money to enhance safety, and accidents wouldn't happen, or atleast extremely rarely.

[phuckphace]

Te only argument against it is "muh safety" and more based on paranoia than truth, like the way so many people are afraid of airplanes because of the occasional fail.
If nuclear energy becomes more common, there'd also be more time and money to enhance safety, and accidents wouldn't happen, or atleast extremely rarely.

what if I told you (in my most solemn Morpheus impersonation) that "extremely rarely" indicates that the risk is non-zero. considering that a nuclear meltdown renders the effected area uninhabitable for tens of thousands of years, it's a risk worth assessing seriously.

one thing that nuclear shills fail to address time and again is "what happens when the unexpected happens?" the consequences of catastrophic nuclear failure when it happens are permanent and can't just be mopped up with detergents like in the case of an oil spill. you're looking at 12,000+ years of extremely deadly radiation that not only spreads radioactivity to other materials but can also be disturbed and scattered about by weather and geological events.

tl;dr - muh safety

[Lovelife090994]

what if I told you (in my most solemn Morpheus impersonation) that "extremely rarely" indicates that the risk is non-zero. considering that a nuclear meltdown renders the effected area uninhabitable for tens of thousands of years, it's a risk worth assessing seriously.

one thing that nuclear shills fail to address time and again is "what happens when the unexpected happens?" the consequences of catastrophic nuclear failure when it happens are permanent and can't just be mopped up with detergents like in the case of an oil spill. you're looking at 12,000+ years of extremely deadly radiation that not only spreads radioactivity to other materials but can also be disturbed and scattered about by weather and geological events.

tl;dr - muh safety

Thousands of years? Ooh we may want to reconsider putting them in dense areas... The ecology would be ruined... And the waste... it has to go somewhere.

[Miserabilia]

what if I told you (in my most solemn Morpheus impersonation) that "extremely rarely" indicates that the risk is non-zero. considering that a nuclear meltdown renders the effected area uninhabitable for tens of thousands of years, it's a risk worth assessing seriously.

one thing that nuclear shills fail to address time and again is "what happens when the unexpected happens?" the consequences of catastrophic nuclear failure when it happens are permanent and can't just be mopped up with detergents like in the case of an oil spill. you're looking at 12,000+ years of extremely deadly radiation that not only spreads radioactivity to other materials but can also be disturbed and scattered about by weather and geological events.

tl;dr - muh safety

We'll make them in a way where that can't possible happen problem solved,
not to mention place them far outside inhabited areas.

[Vlerchan]

In the comments for Gamma Male's source this was brought up. The author of Gamma Male's source had no issue with it.

Hi again Caroline,

I should have mentioned why my numbers are so different from your source’s. The Lincoln Institute gets 5.5 million square kilometres, I get 100,000. What’s going on?!

You used electricity use for your nuclear comparison, so I did too. This is about 7 times smaller than the total energy value the Lincoln Institute use. Their choice is a bit funny IMO as 1 kWh of solar PV output should displace 3 kWh of coal, since coal power stations are only ~33% efficient.

Next up, they assume worse panels than I do. You could double my estimate, or you could halve it based on these assumptions. Combined with the above, this explains a factor of 12 or so.

What about the rest? I don’t know. They talk about a ‘derating factor’ of 77%, so maybe they cut solar production by 77% when the NREL report says it should be 23%.

Who’s right? Denholm & Margolis in Energy Policy, 2008 say that US electricity demand needs 180 sq m of PV per person. US per capita electricity use >4 times higher than the global average so globally it should be ~40 sq m per capita – but the Institute gives 780 sq m.

Love et al, 2003 got 41,000 sq km to provide 2000’s US electricity demand of ~3.6 trillion kWh. Based on modern global demand of ~20 trillion kWh you’re looking at 225,000 sq km. A 2004 DoE report ‘How much land will PV need to supply our electricity?’ gave ~40,000 sq km which is 7% of land designated as ‘cities and residences’. From the table, they appear to consider ‘packing density’, and if so then my figures are the right ones to use here because you want module area, not solar farm area including the pathways etc.

Based on Denholm & Margolis, Love et al and the DoE figures, I think I’m pretty close to the mark. If so, then you need to cut your volume estimate by a factor of about 250.

All the best,
Mark

http://www.thingsworsethannuclearpower.com/2012/09/the-real-waste-problem-solar-edition.html?showComment=1346867137364#c6368307875364938159

I tend to leave the science-related stuff to people studying in that field but from the scarce research I did it does seem that solar power is a maturing technology that's going to become more and more desirable as the years past. I produced a graph above which shows the price of solar energy dropping like a rock and it looks set to continue like that.

[Capto]

He meant another incident like Fukushima or Chernobyl...

Clearly not, as Fukishima is a nonexistent location.

[Vlerchan]

Clearly not, as Fukishima is a nonexistent location.
I think he's referring to the nuclear disaster occurring at the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant, and is using Fukishima as short-hand.

(Am I getting hotter?)

[Capto]

I think he's referring to the nuclear disaster occurring at the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant, and is using Fukishima as short-hand.

(Am I getting hotter?)

Almost, if that was valid short-hand for 福島第１．

[Vlerchan]

Almost, if that was valid short-hand for 福島第１．
Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant?

I think I'll give up if this isn't it. Those two Japanese society meetings I attended didn't prep me for anything beyond introducing myself and not liking sushi, and I forget about the former. I'm in way over my head.

[That's the Spirit]

Yes, Nuclear power is the way forward until we can achieve Nuclear Fusion.
The consequences are HUGELY exaggerated by uneducated Greenpeace groups.

Solar cannot be used everywhere in the world, only the places with good sun can whereas Nuclear power stations can be put anywhere with a good water source.

As an example, solar panels on a house (in the UK) take around 70-80 years to make the money back from what they cost in saved energy costs. Not worth it.

[phuckphace]

We'll make them in a way where that can't possible happen problem solved

:lol3: muh magic technology

not to mention place them far outside inhabited areas.

this might be feasible in countries that have a lot of uninhabited land (provided there's water) but smaller countries are understandably more worried about nuclear accidents because of population density and the likelihood of ending up living next to a reactor, even if the reactor is in another country. say a reactor in the Netherlands melts down, look how many countries are right next door in the path of the fallout cloud? in the western US this wouldn't be as big of a deal since the population is much smaller, most of the land is mountainous or desert, etc.

[Miserabilia]

:lol3: muh magic technology


We'll never know if we can('t) do it untill we try it, right?


this might be feasible in countries that have a lot of uninhabited land (provided there's water) but smaller countries are understandably more worried about nuclear accidents because of population density and the likelihood of ending up living next to a reactor, even if the reactor is in another country. say a reactor in the Netherlands melts down, look how many countries are right next door in the path of the fallout cloud? in the western US this wouldn't be as big of a deal since the population is much smaller, most of the land is mountainous or desert, etc.

Obviously not every country has to own one, theoreticaly there could even be a single spot in, I don't know, antartica or whatever (my brain died today), and have them all there.

I understand that obviously most of what I'm saying is something that's currently not really affordable/possible but I just think it's something we need to keep trying.
I don't think a high risk should stop us from trying to improve it, risks haven't stopped us before, a lot of the greatest inventions and innovations seemed dangerous and had high risks untill someone found a way to make it possible.

That beeing said I totally see where you're coming from.

[Capto]

We'll never know if we can('t) do it untill we try it, right?


No, it's actually, simply by definition, impossible to have an absolutely zero chance of failure with nuclear power.

[Typhlosion]

Obviously not every country has to own one, theoreticaly there could even be a single spot in, I don't know, antartica or whatever (my brain died today), and have them all there.

Except for that small detail of power loss over distance and/or power storage. Up to 15% of power can be lost over long transmissions and storing energy isn't that great nowadays either, all of them below 90% of energy generated (save flywheels, but they are still too small). Even a one or two percent of loss from a large generator can be significant to not power a small city or two. [s1 (http://www.iec.ch/about/brochures/pdf/technology/transmission.pdf), s2 (http://energystorage.org/energy-storage/technologies/pumped-hydroelectric-storage), s3 (http://www.c2es.org/docUploads/10-50_Berry.pdf)]

[phuckphace]

No, it's actually, simply by definition, impossible to have an absolutely zero chance of failure with nuclear power.

^^^^

thank you

[Plane And Simple]

Thread was spammed bumped.

:locked: