Support NeoGAF

[Frankfurter]

Solar is only cheaper when you look at nameplate capacity. The LCOE ignores redundancy, distribution, power storage and grid level effects. You know, all the best and most expensive bits of running a grid with variable generation.

Also, coal and dirty energy are not subsidised to any real extent, and anyone telling you otherwise is twisting statistics to push an agenda.



It doesn't.

Lol. I mean are you for real? This is wrong on so many levels.

 

[elrechazado]

Oil subsidies are about 4 billion in the US. As a percentage of oil revenues, this is pretty small. About a quarter of that is an exemption to farm equipment for fuel taxes, under the theory that we pay gas tax to fund roads, and tractors don't use them, and also serves to keep food low cost. About 20% of the subsidy is for the federal programs subsidizing heating of homes for low income citizens. The rest is general tax breaks that every other corporation in the US also has access to.

As a percentage of energy revenue or any other metric, when you don't just look at dollars, fossil fuel subsidies in the US are de minimus, and renewables are highly subsidized, by many orders of magnitude more than fossil fuels.

That's not an argument by the way to increase fossil fuels subsidies, or refuse the renewable subsidies. But saying "what about fossil fuel subsidies" isn't really a good argument against the notion that renewables aren't quite viable yet without much more massive subsidies.

 

[Vector]

Solar is only cheaper when you look at nameplate capacity. The LCOE ignores redundancy, distribution, power storage and grid level effects. You know, all the best and most expensive bits of running a grid with variable generation.

Also, coal and dirty energy are not subsidised to any real extent, and anyone telling you otherwise is twisting statistics to push an agenda.



It doesn't.

Agreed, but China got the right idea making those new lead-bismuth cooled nuclear power plants to replace fossils. Their uranium reserves will last them a long while, or at least long enough to make a plan-b if ITER or aneutronic experiments fail.

Solar energy is a scam.

 

[Shake Appeal]

Oil subsidies are about 4 billion in the US. As a percentage of oil revenues, this is pretty small. About a quarter of that is an exemption to farm equipment for fuel taxes, under the theory that we pay gas tax to fund roads, and tractors don't use them, and also serves to keep food low cost. About 20% of the subsidy is for the federal programs subsidizing heating of homes for low income citizens. The rest is general tax breaks that every other corporation in the US also has access to.

As a percentage of energy revenue or any other metric, when you don't just look at dollars, fossil fuel subsidies in the US are de minimus, and renewables are highly subsidized, by many orders of magnitude more than fossil fuels.

That's not an argument by the way to increase fossil fuels subsidies, or refuse the renewable subsidies. But saying "what about fossil fuel subsidies" isn't really a good argument against the notion that renewables aren't quite viable yet without much more massive subsidies.

We're talking about "on Earth," though.

Here's the notoriously left-leaning IMF: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2015/wp15105.pdf

The fiscal, environmental, and welfare impacts of energy subsidy reform are potentially
enormous. Eliminating post-tax subsidies in 2015 could raise government revenue by
$2.9 trillion (3.6 percent of global GDP), cut global CO2 emissions by more than
20 percent, and cut pre-mature air pollution deaths by more than half. After allowing for
the higher energy costs faced by consumers, this action would raise global economic
welfare by $1.8 trillion (2.2 percent of global GDP).

I agree that "b-b-but subsidies!" isn't a great argument on either side. What we should be concerned with is the long-term viability of society as we know it.

 

[kottila]

Sweden has around 56% renewable energy, impressive. Norway and Ireland is above 70%.

Norway produces more renewable energy than we use, almost all hydroelectric, but we make more money selling that power on the EU market than using it ourselves.

 

[darkace]

1.) You claim that renewables (or solar in specific?) reduce the grid reliability in Germany. Please provide proof. The German grid is among the most reliable in the world and energy blackouts, even the ones lasting only for seconds, are pretty much unheard of in Germany.

In downtime, sure. When solar and wind generation flare up this can cause serious damage to the grid, and this has occurred in both California and Germany. Although I can't find a source for you unfortunately, I used to have a pretty good one.

2.) German investments in solar WERE a huge part of those total investments back in ~2008-2012 or so. But right now that's actually totally false. China is the main driver behind the growth (while German PV investments are down!), while many other markets (incuding the US) are also growing at huge rates.

German investments are still massive, I was pointing out that their investment had failed to make any impact in emissions.

3.) Germany shut down around half of its nuclear capacity in an instant after the Fukushima incident and the rest will be shut down in the next couple of years. Obviously that results in a temporary rise in coal, natural gas etc. usage. That temporary rise is pretty much over, though.

Given carbon emissions have flat-lined since the GFC, it's hard to understand where you're coming from. German emissions have barely budged. They were higher in 2015 than in 2008.

4.) Your point about covering the roof of all Australian houses is wrong. Covering every single house would provide HUGE amounts of energy. Let's say 5kwp for the average home, 10 million houses, and an average of 1500KWh per kwp per year (considering Australia is a pretty sunny place overall that's probably lowballing it):
1500KWh x 5 x 10 million = 75.000.000.000 kw/h -> 75 TWh

Australia has about 1.5 million houses covered in PV at this very moment. Most of them are in areas naturally suited to it (Northern states). It provides less than 3% of total energy consumed.

Lol. I mean are you for real? This is wrong on so many levels.

Feel free to point out the subsidies they get. The vast majority aren't actually subsidies in any meaning of the word. The only direct subsidies I can think of are for exploration.

Also that IMF chart is pointing out global subsidies. They exist in oil-rich states, but not in countries investing in renewables. I also believe they count not-pricing carbon as a subsidy.

 

[elrechazado]

We're talking about "on Earth," though.

Here's the notoriously left-leaning IMF: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2015/wp15105.pdf



I agree that "b-b-but subsidies!" isn't a great argument on either side. What we should be concerned with is the long-term viability of society as we know it.

The huge subsidies are coming from the OPEC member states who use their oil based economies for vast government spending programs. Venezuela selling gas in country for about 1/20th the cost for example. Ending those types of subsidies would plunge those countries into economic ruin. It's the us, China, and EU that have to take the lead in investments that will move us to post fossil fuel world, because it won't happen on any near timeframe in the petrostates.

But because much of the conversation around here ties in the US, I'm just pointing out that trying to say the fossil fuel industry is as subsidized as renewables isn't even close to being true. That can be a fact that we can all admit while simultaneously advocating for more and more investments in the alternatives like nuclear and renewables.

 

[Aureon]

Northern European countries rely more on wind and water energy I'd assume. Issue is just not less sunshine but also the inability to store the energy over longer periods of time due to the shortcomings of current battery technologies.

Ding ding ding ding.
At the moment, solar energy could be goddamn free, and we'd still need to build backup coal plants.
There's molten salt solar plants, but those are markedly less efficient and more costly than photovoltaic.

That said, there'll be soon next to no excuse not to run 20-25% of peak power as solar+wind.

 

[paradise_circus]

If you look at German investments in solar, they're a large portion of that and it's failed to make any dent in total emissions nor emissions intensity, which I presume is the point of solar. And it's markedly increased electricity costs (mainly felt by the poor), while reducing grid reliability.

Covering the roof of every single house in Australia would provide a few percent of total energy needs. And that's assuming the sun is shining everywhere.

Solar is seeing investment because governments subsidise it to a massive extent. In a real market (with carbon priced), it would never get off the ground. It's a complete white elephant.

There was a small bump in germany last year I think caused mainly due to cheap gas for cars and a longer winter.
Germany also overproduces electricity and exported electricity for 2 billion € in 2015.
https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/ne...ings-record-revenue-of-over-two-billion-euros

 

[Jack The Nipper]

People in Germany can even sell their electricity.

I think the reasons in America are obviously political and about money. If the government
government can't keep getting money on oil.

Obviously they would have some kind of tax on solar use eventually imo anyways.

People definitely need to go fully solar where possible. It's obviously a great investment and politics should definitely be for it. Shops get a lot more business and businesses in general can grow with lower energy costs.

Many people have 300 dollar monthly power bills. That's not cheap at all.

 

[plagiarize]

Oil subsidies are about 4 billion in the US. As a percentage of oil revenues, this is pretty small. About a quarter of that is an exemption to farm equipment for fuel taxes, under the theory that we pay gas tax to fund roads, and tractors don't use them, and also serves to keep food low cost. About 20% of the subsidy is for the federal programs subsidizing heating of homes for low income citizens. The rest is general tax breaks that every other corporation in the US also has access to.

As a percentage of energy revenue or any other metric, when you don't just look at dollars, fossil fuel subsidies in the US are de minimus, and renewables are highly subsidized, by many orders of magnitude more than fossil fuels.

That's not an argument by the way to increase fossil fuels subsidies, or refuse the renewable subsidies. But saying "what about fossil fuel subsidies" isn't really a good argument against the notion that renewables aren't quite viable yet without much more massive subsidies.

Since you brought up oil, how much money do we spend protecting the oil trade? That's why I said 'directly and indirectly'.

 

[tuxfool]

Haha at the people still arguing with a bullshit merchant like Darkace...

 

[darkace]

Haha at the people still arguing with a bullshit merchant like Darkace...

Oh bubba, show me where the facts you don't like touched you.

 

[RSP]

I've been on Solar since June 2015. My electricity bill is negative, meaning I get money back which is then deducted from my gas bill (heating).

I'm scheduled to fully recoup my investment in 2022, 7 years after I had mine installed.

 

[Vector]

Haha at the people still arguing with a bullshit merchant like Darkace...

This not a dialectical argument, I think Darkace's comments are one of the few insightful ones in the heap.

 

[Frankfurter]

In downtime, sure. When solar and wind generation flare up this can cause serious damage to the grid, and this has occurred in both California and Germany. Although I can't find a source for you unfortunately, I used to have a pretty good one.

So this serious damage should obviously have an impact on the reliability of the grid, right? But it doesn't:
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-electricity-grid-stable-amid-energy-transition
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/the-smarter-grid/germanys-superstable-solarsoaked-grid

Given carbon emissions have flat-lined since the GFC, it's hard to understand where you're coming from. German emissions have barely budged. They were higher in 2015 than in 2008.

Where do you get these numbers from!? Carbon emissions were down roughly 6% between 2008 and 2015! Please start providing sources for your claims.

http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/daten/klimawandel/treibhausgas-emissionen-in-deutschland#textpart-1

Australia has about 1.5 million houses covered in PV at this very moment. Most of them are in areas naturally suited to it (Northern states). It provides less than 3% of total energy consumed.

Any source on this? Just btw. why do you think the Southern parts of Australia are not suited for PV?

 

[JoeyJungle]

Since 2009, solar prices are down 62 percent, with every part of the supply chain trimming costs.

What is the solar energy supply chain? Isn't it just, like, sun?

Spoiler

I know this is totally stupid, but serious question. Is this just from a drop in price of manufacturing/transportation/installation costs of solar panels? Or is there other infrastructure? Can solar energy be exported between countries? How does solar energy infrastructure differ from oil and coal?

Solar will never be more than a sideshow. It's useless when the sun isn't shining.

Don't they, like, store that energy in batteries?

 

[Vector]

'Clean coal' is an oxymoron. Ultimately, you're still digging up carbon and releasing it into the circulation one way or another. Moreover, as pointed out in the OP, solar is becoming more economically viable. We've coupled the price of energy to the ever-decreasing price of technology, making renewable energies, namely solar and win, *deflationary* to energy prices for the first time! Given that we have to make the transition anyway, why not make it as soon possible?

No, the idea of clean coal is to use refined fuel and trap it's byproducts, lowering it's net efficiency by ~1/3rds.

The carbondioxide can be stored underground in a pressurised state.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_coal_technology

 

[dabig2]

Why are people in here comparing subsidies of relatively new technology to coal and oil which have been around for over a century? What does any of that matter?

 

[darkace]

So this serious damage should obviously have an impact on the reliability of the grid, right? But it doesn't:
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-electricity-grid-stable-amid-energy-transition
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/the-smarter-grid/germanys-superstable-solarsoaked-grid

That was badly worded. It has flared up causing need for urgent action from central authorities to prevent damage to the grid. Paying consumers to consume electricity as an example: https://qz.com/680661/germany-had-s...that-it-had-to-pay-people-to-use-electricity/

They try to spin it as a positive, but it isn't. It's action that is only undertaken because the life of the grid is on the line.

Where do you get these numbers from!? Carbon emissions were down roughly 6% between 2008 and 2015! Please start providing sources for your claims.

http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/daten/klimawandel/treibhausgas-emissionen-in-deutschland#textpart-1

Was using these:

http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/03/14/german-co2-emissions-rise-10-million-tonnes-in-2015/

Closer inspection says 2009, not 2008. My bad.

Any source on this? Just btw. why do you think the Southern parts of Australia are not suited for PV?

http://www.inforse.org/europe/dieret/Solar/asolarirrad.gif

Solar intensity is pretty lacklustre in the high-density locations in southern states.

http://reneweconomy.com.au/australia-break-5gw-rooftop-solar-mark-july-16858/

Reneweconomy is a really shitty source, but they back up the figures well enough.

Don't they, like, store that energy in batteries?

They can, but it's really inefficient and likely a few decades away from wide-scale employment on the market. Even then it won't ever be cost effective for things like hospitals or energy-intensive industry.

The only possible route to cost-competitive zero-emission generation is nuclear. It's sad we're moving away from it.

 

[Frankfurter]

That was badly worded. It has flared up causing need for urgent action from central authorities to prevent damage to the grid. Paying consumers to consume electricity as an example: https://qz.com/680661/germany-had-s...that-it-had-to-pay-people-to-use-electricity/

They try to spin it as a positive, but it isn't. It's action that is only undertaken because the life of the grid is on the line.

This has nothing to do with the life of the grid being on the line... It sometimes happens (around ~80 hours in all of 2014) that energy prices are negative. That's all there is. Yes, it costs the consumer, but not a whole lot.

Was using these:

http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/03/14/german-co2-emissions-rise-10-million-tonnes-in-2015/

Closer inspection says 2009, not 2008. My bad.

2009 was the year with the biggest recession since 1949, so obviously energy demand and therefore carbon emissions were much lower for that year. If you look at the bigger picture, you see that the overall trend is downwards.

http://www.inforse.org/europe/dieret/Solar/asolarirrad.gif

Solar intensity is pretty lacklustre in the high-density locations in southern states.

http://reneweconomy.com.au/australia-break-5gw-rooftop-solar-mark-july-16858/

Reneweconomy is a really shitty source, but they back up the figures well enough.

Solar intensity in the southern parts of Australia seems to be roughly on par with southern Spain and California. I wouldn't exactly call that lacklustre.

Seems like the average system is just ~3kwp, which is really tiny (like ~25m²). Are Australian houses just very small or is there an incentive to only install small systems? Those 3% could probably increase ~tenfold just by equipping all houses with solar and actually using all the available space.

 

[darkace]

This has nothing to do with the life of the grid being on the line... It sometimes happens (around ~80 hours in all of 2014) that energy prices are negative. That's all there is. Yes, it costs the consumer, but not a whole lot.

Supply must exactly match demand with electricity generation. The use of negative pricing is an attempt to stop the grid suffering damage as a result of over-generation of electricity given the inherent unpredictability of solar and wind. This isn't something that occurs without variable generation.

2009 was the year with the biggest recession since 1949, so obviously energy demand and therefore carbon emissions were much lower for that year. If you look at the bigger picture, you see that the overall trend is downwards.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Germany_Solar_Capacity_Added.png

German solar investment really took off in 2009. With this sort of investment in renewables you would expect emissions to fall. Emissions fell as a result of nuclear, not renewables.

Solar intensity in the southern parts of Australia seems to be roughly on par with southern Spain and California. I wouldn't exactly call that lacklustre.

In terms of being cost efficient to put in place household solar it was. Non-subsidised household PV only provided a positive ROI in 2015.

Seems like the average system is just ~3kwp, which is really tiny (like ~25m²). Are Australian houses just very small or is there an incentive to only install small systems? Those 3% could probably increase ~tenfold just by equipping all houses with solar and actually using all the available space.

Australia has the largest houses in the world. From memory when the subsidies for household PV were in place the cost for larger systems (>$10k for 6kw) was so large there was no chance of recouping the investment within your lifetime.

Also the household solar PV was a complete policy debacle that essentially set fire to billions that could have been used in the commercial generation sector for a far greater ROI.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...grattan-institute-report-20150522-gh7pof.html

It'd be awesome if we could all get our energy from the sun. It really would. But it will never happen. It's just not practical.

 

[Frankfurter]

Supply must exactly match demand with electricity generation. The use of negative pricing is an attempt to stop the grid suffering damage as a result of over-generation of electricity given the inherent unpredictability of solar and wind. This isn't something that occurs without variable generation.

There is no proof - not even the slightest hint - that the German grid is in any danger of suffering "damage".
+ solar and wind actually are fairly predictable for the coming couple of hours at the very least. That's what grid operators do all the time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Germany_Solar_Capacity_Added.png

German solar investment really took off in 2009. With this sort of investment in renewables you would expect emissions to fall. Emissions fell as a result of nuclear, not renewables.

Where do you get this from?

Australia has the largest houses in the world. From memory when the subsidies for household PV were in place the cost for larger systems (>$10k for 6kw) was so large there was no chance of recouping the investment within your lifetime.

Also the household solar PV was a complete policy debacle that essentially set fire to billions that could have been used in the commercial generation sector for a far greater ROI.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...grattan-institute-report-20150522-gh7pof.html

It'd be awesome if we could all get our energy from the sun. It really would. But it will never happen. It's just not practical.

In terms of costs, a solar system either generates a positive ROI for the owner or it doesn't. 10k for 6kwp is no worse a deal than 5k for 3kwp (usually costs actually slightly decrease with the size of the system). So if people don't use up all the available space on their roof, they either think it's not gonna earn them money anyway or there is some kind of limit in place as to how they can sell the price to the grid operator.

Btw. I really don't know how commercial generation could possibly be better than PV on roofs. The land, the house and the roof exists, meaning the installation is easier (i.e.: cheaper) and you don't need to buy land just to use it for solar.

I've seen the same arguments in Germany and most of them boiled down to the point that the energy providing companies simply don't want to have competition in the form of house owners. That's also part of the reason why there is such a huge lobby for offshore wind. A small town can easily build its own wind turbine on shore. Off shore though the costs are way higher and just building one or two turbine isn't gonna cut it.

 

[darkace]

There is no proof - not even the slightest hint - that the German grid is in any danger of suffering "damage".
+ solar and wind actually are fairly predictable for the coming couple of hours at the very least. That's what grid operators do all the time.

That's literally what happens when the grid overproduces. It's only a risk with variable generation. It causes damage to the grid.

Where do you get this from?

What else is the cause? Renewable generation only started in earnest right as emissions increased. It wasn't coal-fired. The reason renewables have failed to make an impact is because the baseload nuclear was off-set with dirty non-renewables.

In terms of costs, a solar system either generates a positive ROI for the owner or it doesn't. 10k for 6kwp is no worse a deal than 5k for 3kwp (usually costs actually slightly decrease with the size of the system). So if people don't use up all the available space on their roof, they either think it's not gonna earn them money anyway or there is some kind of limit in place as to how they can sell the price to the grid operator.

People generally hope for ROI in their lifetimes. The 3kw were offering a positive ROI after about 30 years (which is still crazy). 6kw were over 55. If you're a home-owner that's your entire natural lifespan if you purchased at 30.

Btw. I really don't know how commercial generation could possibly be better than PV on roofs. The land, the house and the roof exists, meaning the installation is easier (i.e.: cheaper) and you don't need to buy land just to use it for solar.

Because grids exist and rooftop solar generation only existed because of government subsidies. Money that could have been put to much better use elsewhere. Subsidising 1.5 million households for ~3% of total electricity is about the least useful method of ensuring green energy I can think of. May as well just allow people to save on heating by setting money alight.

 

[Frankfurter]

We are running in circles here imo. So I'm out of this discussion.

 

[SteveMeister]

I had a 37 panel system installed on my house last fall. It's designed to provide 65% of my peak electric usage. Between the 30% one time federal tax credit, credits earned from my power company for power generated but not consumed, a local property tax reduction that lasts for 10 years, and an electricity credit exchange that I'm eligible for, estimated ROI is about 8 years. My first full month with the system installed (December) I consumed about 60% of what was consumed last December, so I'm already seeing a significant reduction in my power bill -- and that's during the shortest days of the year. I've preordered a Tesla PowerWall 2, which will further reduce my consumption of grid supplied electricity and further reduce my overall electric bill.

Cost of installation was under $30k, less than many cars, and 30% of that comes off my taxable income when I file this year.

Solar is an excellent investment, even outside the benefits to the environment.

 

[n0razi]

Im looking at getting a 2kw solar panel + tesla power wall setup at my house (shoud be around $12,000) but man energy is so cheap here in Texas that it doesnt make any financial sense right now

 

[SteveMeister]

Im looking at getting a 2kw solar panel + tesla power wall setup at my house (shoud be around $12,000) but man energy is so cheap here in Texas that it doesnt make any financial sense right now

How cheap? I'm paying about 12 cents per kWh, and the 8 year ROI mentioned above is based on that. You might want to call up a solar contractor & see if they'll do a thorough analysis for you. Mine did for free.

 

[SporeCrawler]

UK and Ireland am cry. Ain't no sun over there.

you can have wind parks

 

[SporeCrawler]

Why are people in here comparing subsidies of relatively new technology to coal and oil which have been around for over a century? What does any of that matter?

because renewables may stop global warming?

 

[tuxfool]

because renewables may stop global warming?

I think his point is that subsidies are justified in order to kickstart a newer technology. Older and more established technology shouldn't need it.

 

[dabig2]

because renewables may stop global warming?

See below:

I think his point is that subsidies are justified in order to kickstart a newer technology. Older and more established technology shouldn't need it.

You got it. I see people are still trying to paint renewable subsidy in a bad light by comparing it to oil/gas of today, neglecting the fact that those guys were heavily more subsidized near the beginning of the 20th century when their infrastructure was still new.

http://cen.acs.org/articles/89/i51/Long-History-US-Energy-Subsidies.html

...
In comparing current support for renewable energy with past aid for today’s traditional energy sources, the report focuses on two types of assistance: funding during the first 15 years of support and annualized expenditures over the life of the energy source.

The first 15 years, the report says, are critical to developing new technologies. It finds that oil and gas subsidies, including tax breaks and government spending, were about five times as much as aid to renewables during their first 15 years of development; nuclear received 10 times as much support.

Federal support during the first 15 years works out to $3.3 billion annually for nuclear energy and $1.8 billion annually for oil and gas, but an average of only $400 million a year in inflation-adjusted dollars for ­renewables.

For coal, which generates half the nation’s electricity, the authors were unable to quantify government support for the first 15 years, which includes federal and state aid. Coal, Pfund notes, benefits from a host of centuries-old programs that signal a rich history of aid, which is intertwined with the development of the nation. The aid runs deep and comes in many forms—state and federal tax breaks for mining and use; technological support for mining and exploration; national resource maps to encourage exploration and development; tariffs on foreign coal; and aid to steel smelters, railroads, and other industries that burn coal to encourage greater use and develop a steady market for coal.

“It has been a long heyday for coal,” she says, describing states and workers vying for jobs and business.

Pfund and Healey also found that some types of government support—particularly tax breaks—don’t go away because they are embedded in the tax code.

“These subsidies have been huge, and they are the gift that keeps on giving for many energy sources,” Pfund says. Temporary tax incentives intended to spur exploration or development of fossil fuels have become a permanent part of the country’s economic system, Pfund notes.
...

But sporecrawler is still of course correct that all of this means nothing considering renewables have a greater benefit to the world and mankind than merely being another energy source we have to pay for. We need to step up investment several fold into renewables and nuclear research.

 

[Sotha_Sil]

I personally agree, but current fissile reactor technologies that rely on enriched Uranium 235 are not sustainable in the long term due to scarcity of the fuel (in the form of unenriched Uranium 238) in the earth's crust. If we utilized breeder/burner technologies found in gen 4+ fission reactors such as Molten Salt Reactors (MSRs) like Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTRs), then we'd be able to generate massive amounts of electricity cheaply, cleanly, sustainably for the foreseeable future worldwide, and with passive safety, all while preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons and producing only tiny amounts of nuclear waste with a manageable half-life (only 200 to 300 years). Thorium is both plentiful in the earth's crust and ubiquitously distributed around the world. Many scientists believe it could meet the world's base electrical power needs for hundreds of thousands of years. When you consider that the surface of the moon is supposedly covered in thorium, it might possibly be a viable power source for millions of years (see movie Moon for fictional take on such a thing).

I think my afternoon reading will be on this subject. Had no idea any of this was happening.

 

[Aureon]

I think my afternoon reading will be on this subject. Had no idea any of this was happening.

Sadly, it isn't happening.

The public at large goes absolutely batshit when anything happens related to nuclear, and is scared as hell of it.
That means even passively-safe designs get charged with absurd redundant security and insurance costs, because every reactor could be Chernobyl (Even though modern reactors literally can't chernobyl) or TMI (Where literally nothing happened) or Fukushima (where overraction caused two orders of magnitude more damage than the incident itself)

Current fissile technology is perfectly okay for the next century or so. There's more than enough fuel, and waste is minimal and can be reprocessed if that's the hangup.
Then there'll be new tech and we can evaluate again.. But building fissile is slow as fuck, and i think we've missed that boat. Public won't turn fast enough.

Subsides have been massively overdone, though. At some point, Italy was spending 12b a year on solar subsides, while the entire budget for all academic research was 2.5b a year.
That was completely and utterly retarded, and probably just cronyism.

 

[Bustanen]

But coal is clean and beautiful. And what about teh jobs, people can't wait to die in coal mines. Sad.

 

[Vicetrailia]

Sadly, it isn't happening.

The public at large goes absolutely batshit when anything happens related to nuclear, and is scared as hell of it.
That means even passively-safe designs get charged with absurd redundant security and insurance costs, because every reactor could be Chernobyl (Even though modern reactors literally can't chernobyl) or TMI (Where literally nothing happened) or Fukushima (where overraction caused two orders of magnitude more damage than the incident itself)

Current fissile technology is perfectly okay for the next century or so. There's more than enough fuel, and waste is minimal and can be reprocessed if that's the hangup.
Then there'll be new tech and we can evaluate again.. But building fissile is slow as fuck, and i think we've missed that boat. Public won't turn fast enough.

Subsides have been massively overdone, though. At some point, Italy was spending 12b a year on solar subsides, while the entire budget for all academic research was 2.5b a year.
That was completely and utterly retarded, and probably just cronyism.

Unsurprisingly Fukushima continues to be an issue that doesn't go away. The cons are frightening, so I can see why people would prefer renewable to nuclear even if it's better pound for pound.

 

[eqqsquizitine]

Sadly, it isn't happening.

The public at large goes absolutely batshit when anything happens related to nuclear, and is scared as hell of it.
That means even passively-safe designs get charged with absurd redundant security and insurance costs, because every reactor could be Chernobyl (Even though modern reactors literally can't chernobyl) or TMI (Where literally nothing happened) or Fukushima (where overraction caused two orders of magnitude more damage than the incident itself)

Current fissile technology is perfectly okay for the next century or so. There's more than enough fuel, and waste is minimal and can be reprocessed if that's the hangup.
Then there'll be new tech and we can evaluate again.. But building fissile is slow as fuck, and i think we've missed that boat. Public won't turn fast enough.

Subsides have been massively overdone, though. At some point, Italy was spending 12b a year on solar subsides, while the entire budget for all academic research was 2.5b a year.
That was completely and utterly retarded, and probably just cronyism.

Uhh you're going to have to justify that

 

[aeolustl]

Guys, there are more reasons than companies prefer to build solar PV farms than nuclear power plant.
The maintenance cost is really high for nuclear. It is cheaper to maintain a solar farm than nuclear right now so that's why PG&E decides to close the last nuclear power plant in California.

At least AFAIK

 

[SRG01]

Guys, there are more reasons than companies prefer to build solar PV farms than nuclear power plant.
The maintenance cost is really high for nuclear. It is cheaper to maintain a solar farm than nuclear right now so that's why PG&E decides to close the last nuclear power plant in California.

At least AFAIK

Yes. The upfront capital cost for a nuclear plant is also extremely high. That's not taking into account the problems with load balancing a nuclear plant on the electrical grid.

 

[neurosisxeno]

Unsurprisingly Fukushima continues to be an issue that doesn't go away. The cons are frightening, so I can see why people would prefer renewable to nuclear even if it's better pound for pound.

If a 40 year old plant that was like 15 years past its EOL date, and was hit by one of the most powerful Earthquakes it had ever seen, followed up by the largest Tsunami it had ever seen, and barely fails, I think that's pretty damn impressive. Yea, it needs to be taken care of, but considering what happened, I think it did alright.

 

[Aureon]

First, have a link about the health costs of all relevant energy generation methods

Uhh you're going to have to justify that

Pretty easily: The evacuation in the aftermath caused Upwards of 1600 deaths, while Absolutely no health effects due to fukushima radiation leaks could be found in the general public

Unsurprisingly Fukushima continues to be an issue that doesn't go away. The cons are frightening, so I can see why people would prefer renewable to nuclear even if it's better pound for pound.

Do you realize your source is basically tinfoil conspirationists that misunderstand the vanilla conspirationists they're sourcing (RT)?
None of that makes absolutely any sense. How the hell would 300 tons of radiactive material leave Fukushima every day? That's a dumb way of saying saltwater cycled anywhere nearby.
And "Five times more" related to measures that generally go like "4, sttdev 8" (meaning, anywhere from 0 to 20) means absolutely, utterly, nothing.

Guys, there are more reasons than companies prefer to build solar PV farms than nuclear power plant.
The maintenance cost is really high for nuclear. It is cheaper to maintain a solar farm than nuclear right now so that's why PG&E decides to close the last nuclear power plant in California.

At least AFAIK

Solar PV is heavily government-subsided, while nuclear basically pays insurance claims based on "But chernobyl"

Also, other way around. Nuclear has really low maintanance, but very, very high building costs. Very old plants (1950s stuff)

The reality is that radiation effects on health are wildly exaggerated, and if the same standard was taken about fine particles \ smog, most of the first world wouldn't be classed as habitable, and certainly no place within 100km of a coal\oil\methane plant.
Making energy takes capital and health. There's kind of no way around that, but you can sacrifice one for the other (Solar needs far more money, but has technically* no health concerns, while Coal is very cheap, but obviously very unhealthy)

* Rooftop solar is actually more dangerous than nuclear, in deaths/Twh, due to people falling from rooftops when installing\cleaning the panels.