[Pants-of-dog]

Well, it is not overstated if they are getting f.ucked the way they are.

That is exactly why it is overstated.

If Germany had actually switched over to renewables by now, they would not have been dependent on Russian fossil fuels.

[late]

That is exactly why it is overstated.

If Germany had actually switched over to renewables by now, they would not have been dependent on Russian fossil fuels.

Germany bought a lot of solar, problem is, they are too far North. What they need is nukes, there has been some talk of bringing the old reactors on line.

Putin was tactically brilliant pulling that off.

But now he faces a Germany determined to return the favor.

[Pants-of-dog]

As far as I can tell, Germany often produces more solar power than it can use, and at these times sells the electricity to other countries. It seems that the level of insolation is fine for PVs.

[XogGyux]

That is exactly why it is overstated.

If Germany had actually switched over to renewables by now, they would not have been dependent on Russian fossil fuels.

It is not overstated when the end result of all of this ordeal is an energy crisis that is threatening the country into a recession (and some people call it the end of Germany's industry) and a major geopolitical adversary blackmailing you.
It is anything but overstated.
I am sorry but I think it is hubris to spend billions of dollars in solar power in a country with such winters as germany. I love solar, I want to have solar as soon as I buy a house.... in florida, arizona, southern california, nevada, new mexico, actual mexico, central america, africa, south asia, australia?
I get the sentiment, trust me I do. We have to be careful and intentional with what we do.

[XogGyux]

As far as I can tell, Germany often produces more solar power than it can use, and at these times sells the electricity to other countries. It seems that the level of insolation is fine for PVs.

Do you think that makes sense?
That a country that is having a energy crisis has so much solar that it sells it to its neighbors?
To the extent that could be true, it is not really a testament to its solar prowess, but rather an indictment on a production at a time where it cannot be used. AKA inneficiency.

[Pants-of-dog]

It is not overstated when the end result of all of this ordeal is an energy crisis that is threatening the country into a recession (and some people call it the end of Germany's industry) and a major geopolitical adversary blackmailing you.
It is anything but overstated.

And again, how is this not a result of Germany’s dependence on foreign fossil fuels? I have no idea why people insist on blaming investment into solar.

I am sorry but I think it is hubris to spend billions of dollars in solar power in a country with such winters as germany. I love solar, I want to have solar as soon as I buy a house.... in florida, arizona, southern california, nevada, new mexico, actual mexico, central america, africa, south asia, australia?
I get the sentiment, trust me I do. We have to be careful and intentional with what we do.

Again, Germany produces more solar than it can use and store at certain times.

Do you think that makes sense?
That a country that is having a energy crisis has so much solar that it sells it to its neighbors?
To the extent that could be true, it is not really a testament to its solar prowess, but rather an indictment on a production at a time where it cannot be used. AKA inneficiency.

Are you asking me if an observed fact makes sense?

Anyway, how is Germany’s problem not due to its dependence on foreign fossil fuels?

[XogGyux]

And again, how is this not a result of Germany’s dependence on foreign fossil fuels? I have no idea why people insist on blaming investment into solar.

Germany has been trying to bring down its nuclear for the last two decades. They have invested in renewables, which is fine, but solar/wind suffer from the inconvenience that they come up when nature wants it to, not when you need it to. You might end up with shiton of extra energy on a warm summer day with warm breezes but it might not be totally needed. Meanwhile during the night and/or winter you might need it and not have it. As a result, Germany has been buffering these with fossil, coal and gas. Aimed at buffering/covering up when wind/solar is not providing enough. The increase in fossil fuel demands, it is in part, paradoxically, due to the increase in solar/wind demand. Germany should have done with France did, and increase nuclear. In fact, the US should do that as well. Nuclear takes years to build, if we don't start now, we are going to be fucked. Seriously, fucked.

Again, Germany produces more solar than it can use and store at certain times.

So you are saying that germany's energy crisis is a hoax? There is no risk what so ever and they have plenty of energy?
Again, the fact that it might produce more energy on certain days than it can use... is a testament to inefficiency rather than solid energy strategy. If I cook 20 pounds of rice on the weekend, for a dinner of 4, but then throw away 16 pounds but next week, I am starving because I dont have any food... that is inefficient, wasteful and foolish.

Anyway, how is Germany’s problem not due to its dependence on foreign fossil fuels?

It totally is. But they were put in this situation in part because they cannot control when the wind will blow or the sun shine. Guess what, winter has less sun, and more demand for energy to heat houses.... So the combination of solar and winter = you freeze to death. So they use fossil to pick up the slack. They should have used nuclear.

[Pants-of-dog]

Germany has been trying to bring down its nuclear for the last two decades. They have invested in renewables, which is fine, but solar/wind suffer from the inconvenience that they come up when nature wants it to, not when you need it to. You might end up with shiton of extra energy on a warm summer day with warm breezes but it might not be totally needed. Meanwhile during the night and/or winter you might need it and not have it. As a result, Germany has been buffering these with fossil, coal and gas. Aimed at buffering/covering up when wind/solar is not providing enough. The increase in fossil fuel demands, it is in part, paradoxically, due to the increase in solar/wind demand. Germany should have done with France did, and increase nuclear. In fact, the US should do that as well. Nuclear takes years to build, if we don't start now, we are going to be fucked. Seriously, fucked.

No, Germany did not start purchasing foreign fossil fuels in order to buffer solar and wind. They always had this dependence and tried to get rid of it with renewables.

And the USA already has lots of nuclear reactors. But since they are almost all owned by the armed forces, you do not get to use them.

So you are saying that germany's energy crisis is a hoax? There is no risk what so ever and they have plenty of energy?

No. I am saying that blaming it on solar and renewables makes no sense.

Again, the fact that it might produce more energy on certain days than it can use... is a testament to inefficiency rather than solid energy strategy. If I cook 20 pounds of rice on the weekend, for a dinner of 4, but then throw away 16 pounds but next week, I am starving because I dont have any food... that is inefficient, wasteful and foolish.

But it does disprove the claim that Germany is too far north or too cloudy or otherwise wasting money because of its climate and geography, which is what you and @late were claiming.

Now you are moving on to the lack of storage capacity for solar. This is a new argument.

It totally is.

Then why are you and everyone else ignoring this? Not only did it creat fuel problems, but they are still giving money to the bad western developed white country.

But they were put in this situation in part because they cannot control when the wind will blow or the sun shine. Guess what, winter has less sun, and more demand for energy to heat houses.... So the combination of solar and winter = you freeze to death. So they use fossil to pick up the slack. They should have used nuclear.

No, I would argue that their situation is decidedly less problematic because of their investment in renewables, and not more problematic.

[XogGyux]

No. I am saying that blaming it on solar and renewables makes no sense.

Did I blame it on solar? Technology is agnostic towards how you use it. Solar did not ask to be put in a country with mediocre sunlight and strong winters.
I am just saying, that we are finding out in real time what it means to move away from nuclear. We can either learn from this, or we can ignore it and see what happens.
Solar energy has been around since the 1950's, the better part of a century. It accounts for ~2% of global. Granted, it is accelerating at a humongous pace, but we are already consuming as much as we are producing... It is not as if solar panels are lying on the warehouse not being bought up We are also quickly realizing that we are shit out of luck if we don't find a cheap/clean method of storing energy to use solar at its fullest.
Yes, we can and we should use as much as possible of it, but without nuclear, the reality is our energy needs are so vast that we will be using fossil.

But it does disprove the claim that Germany is too far north or too cloudy or otherwise wasting money because of its climate and geography, which is what you and @late were claiming.

It does not disprove that it is inefficient as hell.
Look at this shit:
https://solargis.com/file?url=download/ ... atlas.info
Germany is pretty bad, worse than pretty much all of the US except for areas of Washington state and Alaska. You know, 70% of Canada's population live below the 49th parallel. Where is Berlin located? Above the 52th! You know how much solar energy makes up the energy sources of Canada? 0.3%! I am sure you could cover the whole country in solar panels and get plenty of energy... but is that truly wise to do?
And canadians aren't doing bad.. hey, over 50% of their energy comes from hydro sources.. good for you. In fact, only 20% comes from fossil, KUDOS! But... you have to play the cards that you have been dealt. If you double down on solar panels at the 50th parallel, not only you have to spend 2-3 times as much as someone closer to the Ecuador to get the same amount of energy... but when winter comes you are fucked anyways (not to mention the humongous amounts of storage you would need for night use, assuming that a sizable portion of your energy comes from solar).

Now you are moving on to the lack of storage capacity for solar. This is a new argument.

This is not a new argument. Half the time we spend in earth it is dark and we still consume energy when it is dark. This argument has existed for as long as solar has existed.
You cannot just ignore reality when it is inconvenient to you. The soviets learned this the hard way. The russians seem to have forgotten the lesson and are being taught a lesson right now.
All sources of energy comes with their drawbacks, all of them. Throwing their drawbacks under the table because you are picking up favorites is going to bite you in the ass.

No, I would argue that their situation is decidedly less problematic because of their investment in renewables, and not more problematic.

Only if you ignore how they got to where they are.
As compared to being 100% fossil fuel? Sure... but that was not the alternative... The alternative was to use nuclear, which they dismissed and actively cut down. And they fucked up.

[Pants-of-dog]

Did I blame it on solar?

Yes.

Technology is agnostic towards how you use it. Solar did not ask to be put in a country with mediocre sunlight and strong winters.
I am just saying, that we are finding out in real time what it means to move away from nuclear. We can either learn from this, or we can ignore it and see what happens.
Solar energy has been around since the 1950's, the better part of a century. It accounts for ~2% of global. Granted, it is accelerating at a humongous pace, but we are already consuming as much as we are producing... It is not as if solar panels are lying on the warehouse not being bought up We are also quickly realizing that we are shit out of luck if we don't find a cheap/clean method of storing energy to use solar at its fullest.
Yes, we can and we should use as much as possible of it, but without nuclear, the reality is our energy needs are so vast that we will be using fossil.

Are you debating solar versus nuclear?

It does not disprove that it is inefficient as hell.
…..

From what I understand, solar is less efficient than hydro, wind, and nuclear, but more efficient than fossil fuels. Almost as efficient as nuclear.

This is not a new argument. Half the time we spend in earth it is dark and we still consume energy when it is dark. This argument has existed for as long as solar has existed.

Storing energy also has solutions as old as daylight.

You cannot just ignore reality when it is inconvenient to you. The soviets learned this the hard way. The russians seem to have forgotten the lesson and are being taught a lesson right now.
All sources of energy comes with their drawbacks, all of them. Throwing their drawbacks under the table because you are picking up favorites is going to bite you in the ass.

I agree.

How do you deal with the drawbacks of nuclear energy?

Only if you ignore how they got to where they are.
As compared to being 100% fossil fuel? Sure... but that was not the alternative... The alternative was to use nuclear, which they dismissed and actively cut down. And they fucked up.

No, that is not how the history went.

[Steve_American]

...snip...

And again, how is this not a result of Germany’s dependence on foreign fossil fuels? I have no idea why people insist on blaming investment into solar.

...snip...

Again, Germany produces more solar than it can use and store at certain times.

...snip...

Are you asking me if an observed fact makes sense?

Anyway, how is Germany’s problem not due to its dependence on foreign fossil fuels?

I find you-all's reaction to all this strange. You-all have college degrees and so should know better. Or, you have all fallen for the propaganda put out by economists and climate deniers.

You all worry about the US living within its means when it comes to dollars of its income, as if it can't create all the dollars it wants to create.
While you all don't see that Germany didn't do what ever it had to do to live within its means when it came to the most basic natural resource, which is energy.
IMHO, Germany should have spent the last 20 to 50 years modifying its economy to live within its means when it comes to real resource and labor. If it had done that then it would not have created an economy based on industry and that industry dependent on natural gas that it makes into feed stock, like chemicals, that it then uses to make stuff to sell. Based on what Peter Zeihan tells me on this, that is what Germany did do, and now its whole economy is in deep poop, because it will not be able to get the gas to make into chemicals (and plastic , I guess) to make into stuff to sell.

You-all still reject MMT and stick to your mainstream economic theory to focus on living within the nation's income and not on the real resources that it has or can buy (and be able to buy for sure in the future). Do you know that mainstream economic theories all assume that there are no limits on resources? Surely, you know in some corner of your mind that that is false. Germany was foolish to trust that Russia would not use German dependence on its gas when the time was right. Nations should not depend on its enemies for critical elements of its functioning economy. Enemies can't be trusted. This goes for the US trusting China, look how dumb that looks now.

[BTW --- a founding MMTer (Warren Mosler) asserts that the focus on money flows causes most people to reject his assertion that importing stuff is a gain for the nation (because it trades paper money for real stuff) and exporting stuff is a loss for the nation (because it trades real stuff that its people used their work time making for paper money]. This switch results from the fact that the world is off the gold standard. Germany has exported to accumulate IOUs that can be defaulted on at any time. The risk of Greek default in 2010 is why Germany cooperated with the ECB and the IMF to force Greece to borrow billions to make payments on its loans from German banks. That new loan to Greece will never be repaid, because Greece doesn't have the income to pay it. Note, Greece uses a foreign currency (euro) and so can't borrow in its own fiat currency, like the US can and always does. Also note, the US can never get back onto the gold standard without defaulting on almost all its bonds, which the rich hold, and so the rich will never allow the US to default on those bonds to get back onto a gold standard.

.

[XogGyux]

Yes.

If that is what you think: 1) It is a strawman, 2) you are wrong.

Are you debating solar versus nuclear?

No. I am debating the importance to be realistic and using the brain. One thing is what you wish for, another thing is what it is actually true. Nature took 4billion years to put things the way they are. To collect energy, we need to change things from what they are. Therefore, everything we do for energy will have a cost. Ignoring that cost is malpractice. Pretending that cost does not exist, is malpractice. Wasting that cost in a less efficient way of doing things... you guessed it... it is malpractice.

From what I understand, solar is less efficient than hydro, wind, and nuclear, but more efficient than fossil fuels. Almost as efficient as nuclear.

Wait what? How are you measuring that "efficiency". Solar energy output depends on how much light there is. The most efficient commercially available solar panels can manage to convert about 20ish percent of the energy that hits the earth. More expensive panels do exist but they are prohibitively expensive and reserved for very high performance tasks... such as powering shit in orbit.
Now... the panel itself has a set efficiency... however, not all latitudes of the planet gets the same amount of light. So if in ecuador you get 400watts per square metter of sunlight and your panel is 25% efficient, the panel will generate 100 watts. But if you are in germany, you no longer get 400watt/sq, you might get 150watt/sq, so now the panel is generating 40watts.
A panel is Germany will only produce a fraction of the same panel in morocco. So, where you place them matters. Ideally, you'd place them out of space, so that energy is not scattered by the atmosphere and we can put them in direct sunlight. Such a thing would be completely useless for our planet (short of some sci-fi stuff with space elevators or high power lasers, etc. but lets just focus on reality for once).
Short of that... you want them on areas were there is a lot of sun, not a lot of shade or clouds. Typically, the closer to Ecuador the better. That does not mean they are useless anywhere else, they aren't, but they only function at a fraction of their capacity, so you would have to put 3x as much to get the same amount of power. For instance, Germany produces about 3500TWh of which about 10% is solar, so about 350TWh is solar. At the latitude of the Atacama desert, the same solar panel systems would generate about 2-3x as much at a minimum per year. So that same array would be enough to power Chile, Peru and Ecuador put together. Of course, it is not as simple either... because you would get 2x of what you need during the day, but nothing at night. So in reality you could power the daylight needs of another couple south American countries while relying on something else during the night (or having some sort of storage).
Here is the deal... we don't have enough, why are you so insisting on wasting what little we have on places in which solar generates 1/3rd as much.

Storing energy also has solutions as old as daylight.

Not at the scale that we need. Today we pretty much have 2 options. Batteries, which are ridiculously expensive and there is no way they will store any significant amount of energy for any of the top 20 CO2 emitter countries for the forseable future. So that is out of the picture. Then we have potential energy... such as pumping water up back into the dam so that we can use it again via hydro at some point in the future. This is limited to places where you can actually do this because you have water, dam and pumps. There are other shit in development such as molten salts, or devices that store momentum/potential energy, but we ain't powering new york at night with that shit anytime soon. If you truly have a storage solution that is feasible at the scale that we need, then you should postulate yourself for the nobel in physics.

How do you deal with the drawbacks of nuclear energy?

How are we dealing with it now? You do realize we have been using nuclear for the better part of a century right? In all this time we have only had a handful of accidents, the worse of which was caused by moronic bureaucrats. All accidents put together around the world does not even come close to the amount of people that have died mining coal. Let alone the millions that die from inhaling the shit that we put in our air.
What's your problem? Radioactivity? Rofl, people living next to coal plants are exposed to more radiation than those living next to nuclear plants. And the spent fuel in nuclear we keep safely stored... while the radiation released by coal is just dumped into the very air we breathe. You could also get the spent fuel, break it into very fine dust and spread that radiation around the world's air and sea just like we already do with coal, but that would be stupid.
The dangers of nuclear are way... way... way... way... overblown. And that is with an average age of ~30+ years for the world's plants. Imagine how much safer newer ones can be.

No, that is not how the history went.

Of course, we know it is not how it went.... That is the point, they could have gone the other way, you know, the more reasonable way.

[Pants-of-dog]

If that is what you think: 1) It is a strawman, 2) you are wrong.

Then you need to be more clear in your writing.

No. I am debating the importance to be realistic and using the brain. One thing is what you wish for, another thing is what it is actually true. Nature took 4billion years to put things the way they are. To collect energy, we need to change things from what they are. Therefore, everything we do for energy will have a cost. Ignoring that cost is malpractice. Pretending that cost does not exist, is malpractice. Wasting that cost in a less efficient way of doing things... you guessed it... it is malpractice.

You now seem to be making a whole new argument.

At this point, I am assuming you no longer support your previous argument that Germany made a mistake with solar.

I will also assume that you are no longer debating solar versus nuclear.

Wait what? How are you measuring that "efficiency". Solar energy output depends on how much light there is. The most efficient commercially available solar panels can manage to convert about 20ish percent of the energy that hits the earth. More expensive panels do exist but they are prohibitively expensive and reserved for very high performance tasks... such as powering shit in orbit.
Now... the panel itself has a set efficiency... however, not all latitudes of the planet gets the same amount of light. So if in ecuador you get 400watts per square metter of sunlight and your panel is 25% efficient, the panel will generate 100 watts. But if you are in germany, you no longer get 400watt/sq, you might get 150watt/sq, so now the panel is generating 40watts.
A panel is Germany will only produce a fraction of the same panel in morocco. So, where you place them matters. Ideally, you'd place them out of space, so that energy is not scattered by the atmosphere and we can put them in direct sunlight. Such a thing would be completely useless for our planet (short of some sci-fi stuff with space elevators or high power lasers, etc. but lets just focus on reality for once).
Short of that... you want them on areas were there is a lot of sun, not a lot of shade or clouds. Typically, the closer to Ecuador the better. That does not mean they are useless anywhere else, they aren't, but they only function at a fraction of their capacity, so you would have to put 3x as much to get the same amount of power. For instance, Germany produces about 3500TWh of which about 10% is solar, so about 350TWh is solar. At the latitude of the Atacama desert, the same solar panel systems would generate about 2-3x as much at a minimum per year. So that same array would be enough to power Chile, Peru and Ecuador put together. Of course, it is not as simple either... because you would get 2x of what you need during the day, but nothing at night. So in reality you could power the daylight needs of another couple south American countries while relying on something else during the night (or having some sort of storage).
Here is the deal... we don't have enough, why are you so insisting on wasting what little we have on places in which solar generates 1/3rd as much.

Again, efficiency for energy production can be measured by the amount of energy put out by the plant over its entire life cycle divided by the amount of energy used by the plant over its entire life cycle. This includes cleaning up externalities.

Not at the scale that we need. Today we pretty much have 2 options. Batteries, which are ridiculously expensive and there is no way they will store any significant amount of energy for any of the top 20 CO2 emitter countries for the forseable future. So that is out of the picture. Then we have potential energy... such as pumping water up back into the dam so that we can use it again via hydro at some point in the future. This is limited to places where you can actually do this because you have water, dam and pumps. There are other shit in development such as molten salts, or devices that store momentum/potential energy, but we ain't powering new york at night with that shit anytime soon. If you truly have a storage solution that is feasible at the scale that we need, then you should postulate yourself for the nobel in physics.

I am not sure this is true. Regardless, this is not part of my argument.

How are we dealing with it now? You do realize we have been using nuclear for the better part of a century right? In all this time we have only had a handful of accidents, the worse of which was caused by moronic bureaucrats. All accidents put together around the world does not even come close to the amount of people that have died mining coal. Let alone the millions that die from inhaling the shit that we put in our air.
What's your problem? Radioactivity? Rofl, people living next to coal plants are exposed to more radiation than those living next to nuclear plants. And the spent fuel in nuclear we keep safely stored... while the radiation released by coal is just dumped into the very air we breathe. You could also get the spent fuel, break it into very fine dust and spread that radiation around the world's air and sea just like we already do with coal, but that would be stupid.
The dangers of nuclear are way... way... way... way... overblown. And that is with an average age of ~30+ years for the world's plants. Imagine how much safer newer ones can be.

You seem to be ignoring the drawbacks associated with storage of nuclear waste, and the growing black market for said waste. It is simply a matter of time before a terrorist buys some and makes a dirty bomb that goes off in a US city.

Also, uranium mining is not any cleaner or safer than coal mining. For example, the tailings from mining and milling are also radioactive and must also be safely disposed of.

And of course, there is the problem of nuclear proliferation. The whole developing world needs energy, so are you willing to export nuclear tech? Even to people like the Iranians?

Of course, we know it is not how it went.... That is the point, they could have gone the other way, you know, the more reasonable way.

Again, you do not seem to know Germany’s history with nuclear.

[XogGyux]

Then you need to be more clear in your writing.

You just need to read better or ask for clarification when you are genuinely confused if that is the case.

You now seem to be making a whole new argument.

At this point, I am assuming you no longer support your previous argument that Germany made a mistake with solar.

I will also assume that you are no longer debating solar versus nuclear.

There is no new argument at all.
Here. This guy basically summarizes my point. Keep in mind that this was posted only 24h ago, either he read this post and went to parrot my points or we came with these ideas independently because I have never seen him talk about this particular topic:

There is nothing intrinsically good or bad regarding the way we achieve energy. It is entirely possible to have a sustainable use of hydrocarbons for combustion. And notice I mention hydrocarbons and not fossil fuels. It is entirely possible to recycle carbon such as a vegetable-biofuel cycle assuming that the production phase is entirely performed using "green" methods. Obviously, such a system would be energy intensive, but if the energy we put into the system is from a carbon-neutral source such as nuclear, the NET CO2 would also be neutral at most. The net energy might ultimately be less (aka you lose energy in the system due to inefficiency) but what you lose in inefficiency you win in energy density. Hydrocarbons are very energy dense, in a world in which we are unable to increase the density of energy in batteries by a few orders of magnitude, we couldn't entirely eliminate hydrocarbons. There is no technology that could replace jet planes for instance.
The problem is not burning hydrocarbons... the problem arrives when we burn OLD (fossil) hydrocarbons... because those have been out of circulation for millennia and burning them releases carbon that has been thus sequestered.
It is not unreasonable that if we master fusion, which could make energy extremely cheap, we could afford to grow our own hydrocarbons. In fact, we already do this in a small scale.

Again, efficiency for energy production can be measured by the amount of energy put out by the plant over its entire life cycle divided by the amount of energy used by the plant over its entire life cycle. This includes cleaning up externalities.

That is not what efficiency means. Efficiency is the amount of useful energy divided by the total amount of energy input. For instance, in a solar panel, if 1 square meter of ground is hit by 400Wh by the sun but the panel is only producing 100Wh, then that panel has an efficiency of ~25%. Similarly, if a combustion engine is ~30% efficient, it means that 30% of the energy produced can be used to perform work, while the rest are a combination of uncombusted products, heat, friction, noise, etc. What you mentioned has nothing to do with energy efficiency.

If you think about what you described... it does not even make sense. If you divide the amount of energy put out by the plan over its entire life cycle divided by the energy used by plant... this number is going to be a number greater than one... Meaning you have an efficiency greater than 100%... That is thermodynamically impossible.
Aka:
amount of energy put out by the plant over its entire life cycle >>>> the amount of energy used by the plant over its entire life cycle
A number divided by a smaller number is going to result in a ratio larger than 1. A ratio larger than one means an efficiency larger than 1. One = 100% efficiency. This is nonsensical.

You seem to be ignoring the drawbacks associated with storage of nuclear waste, and the growing black market for said waste.

As opposed to the drawbacks of the storage of CO2? Guess what... we don't store the CO2, we just dump it into the air we breathe.
As opposed to the drawbacks of the storage of all the radioactive compounds that get released when we burn fossil fuels? Again... we just dump it in the air.
How is it possible that you are more afraid of a neatly stored concentrated pellet of radioactive material vs just dumping it into the air we breathe?
Wake up man, you have been drinking some coolaid.

It is simply a matter of time before a terrorist buys some and makes a dirty bomb that goes off in a US city.

To do what? At best they would be able to do a dirty bomb... that's the worse thing they could do. Terrorists cannot make a nuclear-capable device with nuclear waste. You need to purify the stuff. Whole countries have put their nation's resources to do this, and it has taken them decades to develop nuclear devices. The cousins of bin laden are not going to be improvising a nuclear device in a garage.
You know what the deadliest effect of a dirty bomb is? The actual explosion. The radiation shit, is often times more scary in paper than the actual damage it can do. If you put some radioactive material around a stick of dinamite to make a dirty bomb. I guarantee you that more people will die from the stick of dynamite itself than from the radiation released.
Not to mention... you don't need nuclear plants to get your hands on radioactive shit... You can get your radioactive waste products from hospitals that have radioactive materials.

Just so you understand how absurd is your position... If we were talking about covid... it would be reasonable to say.... go ahead ask the experts (doctors, biochemists, pharmacists, etc) what they think about the vaccine. And if you are unsure... you can reasonably take their word for it..
Apply the same shit to nuclear. Go ask the nuclear experts what they think about the dangers of nuclear energy I am just a fool in the internet... but go ask the actual nuclear physicist what they think... if they are worried about radiation or dirty bombs or nuclear proliferation, or meltdowns.
Nuclear is very safe.

Also, uranium mining is not any cleaner or safer than coal mining.

Except you use a few kilos of uranium to produce what a few tons of coal would take. This is not even a comparison.
https://www.nei.org/fundamentals/nuclea ... ural%20gas.

Uranium is an abundant metal and is full of energy: One uranium fuel pellet creates as much energy as one ton of coal, 149 gallons of oil or 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas. It does not come out of the ground ready to go into a reactor, though. It is mined and processed to create nuclear fuel.

For reference, 1 pellet contains 10g of uranium. So 10 grams of uranium 1 ton of coal. You are not being rational at all.
Do you think that mining lithium to make batteries is going to be better? Or cobalt?

For example, the tailings from mining and milling are also radioactive and must also be safely disposed of.

Again, this is completely irrational. The radioactive shit that we got from the ground... was there all along. There is nothing that prevent us from simply just putting it down exactly where it was before.
The only real caveat is with products that already underwent nuclear fission because you could end up with isotopes that are more radioactive. But prior to the reaction, you can simply put it back into the ground as if we never dug it to begin with. The amount of highly radioactive shit that is produced is really really tiny and with newer technologies it gets even better.

And of course, there is the problem of nuclear proliferation.

No there is not.

The whole developing world needs energy, so are you willing to export nuclear tech? Even to people like the Iranians?

Yes.

[Pants-of-dog]

You just need to read better or ask for clarification when you are genuinely confused if that is the case.

There is no new argument at all.
Here. This guy basically summarizes my point. Keep in mind that this was posted only 24h ago, either he read this post and went to parrot my points or we came with these ideas independently because I have never seen him talk about this particular topic:

Please clarify your claim(s).

There is nothing intrinsically good or bad regarding the way we achieve energy. It is entirely possible to have a sustainable use of hydrocarbons for combustion. And notice I mention hydrocarbons and not fossil fuels. It is entirely possible to recycle carbon such as a vegetable-biofuel cycle assuming that the production phase is entirely performed using "green" methods. Obviously, such a system would be energy intensive, but if the energy we put into the system is from a carbon-neutral source such as nuclear, the NET CO2 would also be neutral at most. The net energy might ultimately be less (aka you lose energy in the system due to inefficiency) but what you lose in inefficiency you win in energy density. Hydrocarbons are very energy dense, in a world in which we are unable to increase the density of energy in batteries by a few orders of magnitude, we couldn't entirely eliminate hydrocarbons. There is no technology that could replace jet planes for instance.
The problem is not burning hydrocarbons... the problem arrives when we burn OLD (fossil) hydrocarbons... because those have been out of circulation for millennia and burning them releases carbon that has been thus sequestered.
It is not unreasonable that if we master fusion, which could make energy extremely cheap, we could afford to grow our own hydrocarbons. In fact, we already do this in a small scale.

Plant based hydrocarbon fuels also have significant drawbacks.

Would you care to look at those?

That is not what efficiency means. Efficiency is the amount of useful energy divided by the total amount of energy input. For instance, in a solar panel, if 1 square meter of ground is hit by 400Wh by the sun but the panel is only producing 100Wh, then that panel has an efficiency of ~25%. Similarly, if a combustion engine is ~30% efficient, it means that 30% of the energy produced can be used to perform work, while the rest are a combination of uncombusted products, heat, friction, noise, etc. What you mentioned has nothing to do with energy efficiency.

Since all these inefficiencies would be accounted for in the life cycle analysis I mentioned, this criticism is not very strong.

If you think about what you described... it does not even make sense. If you divide the amount of energy put out by the plan over its entire life cycle divided by the energy used by plant... this number is going to be a number greater than one... Meaning you have an efficiency greater than 100%... That is thermodynamically impossible.

Only if it were a closed system. Since these are systems designed to unlock and harvest existing energy for human use, this law is not applicable in the way you think it is.

As opposed to the drawbacks of the storage of CO2? Guess what... we don't store the CO2, we just dump it into the air we breathe.
As opposed to the drawbacks of the storage of all the radioactive compounds that get released when we burn fossil fuels? Again... we just dump it in the air.
How is it possible that you are more afraid of a neatly stored concentrated pellet of radioactive material vs just dumping it into the air we breathe?
Wake up man, you have been drinking some coolaid.

I never said anything bad about nuclear or argued against it in any way. You just need to read better or ask for clarification when you are genuinely confused if that is the case.

Again, do you think having criminals sell nuclear waste to terrorists is a drawback? Yes or no?

To do what? At best they would be able to do a dirty bomb... that's the worse thing they could do. Terrorists cannot make a nuclear-capable device with nuclear waste. You need to purify the stuff.

Whole countries have put their nation's resources to do this, and it has taken them decades to develop nuclear devices. The cousins of bin laden are not going to be improvising a nuclear device in a garage.

You know what the deadliest effect of a dirty bomb is? The actual explosion. The radiation shit, is often times more scary in paper than the actual damage it can do. If you put some radioactive material around a stick of dinamite to make a dirty bomb. I guarantee you that more people will die from the stick of dynamite itself than from the radiation released.

Not to mention... you don't need nuclear plants to get your hands on radioactive shit... You can get your radioactive waste products from hospitals that have radioactive materials.

Yes. Imagine a dirty bomb going off in Manhattan. Or Miami.

Considering how fearful US people get whenever they feel attacked, a dirty bomb just needs to explode and be described as having nuclear materials in order to effectively terrorize the population.

Just so you understand how absurd is your position... If we were talking about covid... it would be reasonable to say.... go ahead ask the experts (doctors, biochemists, pharmacists, etc) what they think about the vaccine. And if you are unsure... you can reasonably take their word for it..
Apply the same shit to nuclear. Go ask the nuclear experts what they think about the dangers of nuclear energy I am just a fool in the internet... but go ask the actual nuclear physicist what they think... if they are worried about radiation or dirty bombs or nuclear proliferation, or meltdowns.
Nuclear is very safe.

They must take total deaths per unit. This throws off the number for hydro-electric, since a single dam burst can. have huge fatalities, even if 5e vast majority are safe. But whatever. We cannot pretend that the death toll from nuclear energy (including the benefits from military use of nuclear) is actually zero.

If we confine it solely to electricity production, it is very small. If we look at all uses of nuclear energy, the number is far higher.

You cannot make a bomb out of solar cells or windmills.

Except you use a few kilos of uranium to produce what a few tons of coal would take. This is not even a comparison.
https://www.nei.org/fundamentals/nuclea ... ural%20gas.

For reference, 1 pellet contains 10g of uranium. So 10 grams of uranium 1 ton of coal. You are not being rational at all.
Do you think that mining lithium to make batteries is going to be better? Or cobalt?

Please clarify your argument here.

Again, this is completely irrational. The radioactive shit that we got from the ground... was there all along. There is nothing that prevent us from simply just putting it down exactly where it was before.

The only real caveat is with products that already underwent nuclear fission because you could end up with isotopes that are more radioactive. But prior to the reaction, you can simply put it back into the ground as if we never dug it to begin with. The amount of highly radioactive shit that is produced is really really tiny and with newer technologies it gets even better.

Yes and no. Tailings from uranium mines were used as backfill for construction projects. This was stopped because of the high levels of cancer found in building users. To this day, many municipalities offer radon testing for homes.

But theoretically we can bury it again, and doing so requires energy. This is then referenced in the calculation looking at energy use over the project life cycle.

No there is not.

Yes.

So you support Iran’s attempt to gain nuclear weapons. Okay.

[XogGyux]

Oh, look. Someone managed to do a TED talk on the topic. Go watch it and see if you still feel the same:

[XogGyux]

So you support Iran’s attempt to gain nuclear weapons. Okay.

You are an unsincere debater. We are talking about nuclear power production, not about nuclear weapons. And yes, I don't mind them having nuclear power plants. This is a massive red herring. Very unsincere. Fuck off.

[XogGyux]

Since all these inefficiencies would be accounted for in the life cycle analysis I mentioned, this criticism is not very strong.

WTF you talking about. You are not even using the right definition of efficiency and you just dismiss what I say?

Only if it were a closed system. Since these are systems designed to unlock and harvest existing energy for human use, this law is not applicable in the way you think it is.

You have no clue what you are talking about. Your proposed nonsense leads to efficiencies over 100%, that is not scientific, that is snake oil salesperson/witchcraft nonsense.

Again, do you think having criminals sell nuclear waste to terrorists is a drawback? Yes or no?

How many criminals are you aware off that are selling nuclear waste to terrorists?

Yes. Imagine a dirty bomb going off in Manhattan. Or Miami.

Considering how fearful US people get whenever they feel attacked, a dirty bomb just needs to explode and be described as having nuclear materials in order to effectively terrorize the population.

Whether or not people are affraid or have a heightened perception of danger is irrelevant to this argument, especially when most of the fear is spread by idiots that don't know shit about what they are talking about.

They must take total deaths per unit. This throws off the number for hydro-electric, since a single dam burst can.

So in other words, lets just ignore the dangers of having billions and billions of tons of water ready to be released on a failure of a damn. Honestly, right now you sound like any anti-vaccine moron, just on a different topic.

Please clarify your argument here.

It is self-explanatory. As far as mining is concerned, you need far less (by many orders of magnitude) excavator operations which are in turn far less noxious to the environment.


This is the foking problem with you. I post my answer to you at 21:50 after carefully thinking about the answers I would give you... and half an hour later you already posted some crap. Didn't read (and probably didn't watch what I linked) and then just complain that you don't understand or want some clarification or some other nonsense like that. Again, you are very unsincere.

[XogGyux]

Also... you forget that the bulk of energy consumption in the planet occurs on countries that already have nuclear technology, nuclear bombs or both.
China, US, Japan, India, Russia, Canada, Germany, South Korea, France. Just replacing their respective fossil fuels for nuclear would go a great deal to address climate change. And that is, without adding a single country to the nuclear-capable list.
The red herring of giving rogue state nukes is nonsense, all of these states already have nuclear and many also have actual nuclear weapons (France, US, Russia, India)... And guess what. NK has nukes. Go figure.

[XogGyux]