Comments
MBlaizze t1_irulm7f wrote
Exactly - cover every parking lot with nice shade providing solar panels, put them on every rooftop, awning, and bridge, put them over sections of highways and over canals to reduce water evaporation.
Extremely-Bad-Idea t1_irurfrx wrote
Yup, that's the way.
Still_Study_6059 t1_irv9eg0 wrote
We don't really have similar parking lots here in Europe as opposed to America. But there's plenty of space on rooftops of all sorts of buildings. My municipality? built a solar park out in some space that was previously used for farming and is reaping benefits from it. But with just a bit more effort it could've been placed atop existing buildings there were a number of big buildings nearby even that could've supported it.
Everything that's built new should have rooftop solar incorporated in the design anyway imo. Our administrative building for the municipality is getting plastered with solar on top of getting a new insulating roof btw in the very near future. I think it might be happening atm.
FrozenIceman t1_irxxi61 wrote
The issue is that is the expensive way to do it. The only way Solar is cheaper than most other forms of power is large industrial solar panel farms. By restricting it to roof tops, it improves the grid efficiency certainly, but in turn raises electricity prices.
[deleted] t1_irus5jr wrote
There is still not enough space in Europe to cover energy needs if every aforementioned surface could be covered. Current solar is somewhere between 22-27x less space efficient than nuclear power designs from the 60s, what should of happened is nuclear power plants would’ve been built / kept operational but Europe pays the price for it now
SrpskaZemlja t1_irust5z wrote
Solar is cheaper and can be expanded rapidly sooner.
[deleted] t1_irut27e wrote
It’s cheaper because it’s actively supported and gets money put into research. It’s competing with designs from the 1950s. Also, economical cost is not the only factor. Space is another literally highlighted by the article
Icy-Confidence8018 t1_irvge1s wrote
Oof. You’re right. I hate public perception of nuclear power. It’s such a glaring solution to power production issues. Especially with mainstream support for tech breakthroughs possibly making it smaller and safer.
Guerriky t1_irx2am9 wrote
Nuclear is also a lot more infrastructure demanding, a lot slower to render operational, and a lot more difficult to get the fuel for.
Solar can be scaled up in months, nuclear takes years for a single reactor.
Also, nuclear produces power all the time, but energy demand peaks during the day, when factories and construction sites open.
Also, nuclear is very centralized, which means that any time maintenance is required, power has to be accumulated or generated by other fossil fuels.
Also, nuclear "fuel" has to be mined and processed. It depends on it to run, and so would your economy.
[deleted] t1_irx7sgs wrote
You think absolutely none of these issues mentioned could’ve been solved if we put money into developing new nuclear technologies? Making them smaller would address most of these issues. Solar from the 90s is a fair comparison to nuclear as the technology has not advanced at all due to political factors.
Also to your 4th point… this is the very same issue with solar as well. Half the time the sun isn’t there so you need to either build batteries or…. Supplement with a different source of power. Additionally, using both solar and nuclear are not mutually exclusive, not sure why you view it this way
Guerriky t1_iry1h5d wrote
Because nuclear requires enormous initial investment, it's slow to deploy, tricky to distribute, not easily scalable, still needs to be accumulated (because of too much power, rather than too little), still relies on the economics of a fuel.
If we invest heavily in nuclear what we could invest on renewables, we would reap the profits in twenty years.
And we can't make small reactors; for one, because tech isn't ready yet (despite recent Chinese investments), but also because... Who'd want them in their yards?
Also, since you mentioned it... You'd be amazed how little we progressed in renewable tech in the last 20 years, especially solar... We really sat on our comfy gas for a long time, you know... No real incentives...
TheBestMePlausible t1_irwtua6 wrote
Found the European Nuclear Commissions alt account!
[deleted] t1_irwon23 wrote
[deleted]
jhaand t1_irv1fdh wrote
Not exactly. That makes agrophotovoltaics so interesting. Plants will only grow so much on a sunny day, the rest of the solar energy will just evaporate. So if you put some solar panels above the potatoes, with around 50% coverage. The potatoes will grow just as fast, consume less water and you also harvest solar energy.
Having the panels flat above the plants will also look nicer for people driving by.
Harvesting the potatoes will require some new machinery though.
andricathere t1_irvgmop wrote
But still, don't destroy greenspace to add solar. Farmland is different. The greenspace there is already disturbed.
Eltre78 t1_irvc5z2 wrote
Idk, seems like the most no-brainer would be to put them in parking lots. Lots of space with 0 green, it also protects cars from the sun
Bgrngod t1_irwkb44 wrote
Not getting roasted by the sun while tossing my stuff into the car to wrap up a shopping trip sure is nice.
Also, the car isn't blistering hot when I get in it.
Win, Win, Win, Win, and I lost fucking count but sure here's another Win.
TightSpringActive t1_irwo0hh wrote
I'm seeing this all over in my state in the USA. Medical facilities were the first to install shades over the parking lots covered in solar panels. Now it's strip malls, even seeing them being installed currently in general mall parking lots.
Another bonus? Keeps the snow off your car in the winter!
Keep them coming, seems to be a win/win.
Z-Mtn-Man-3394 t1_irwzdx7 wrote
Happening at schools, libraries, government buildings etc. it’s a super smart thing to do
Able-Emotion4416 t1_irwxg8q wrote
Parking lots are relatively rare in Europe...
Reep1611 t1_irv5r8t wrote
And then you live in Germany where you get prohibited from putting solar panels on your roof because the Boomer local gouvernement says it ruins the historical appeal of the citys church. A church that is not even in line of sight, so its just a excuse and they stop you for no better reason than old calcified people not liking change and concepts like renewable energy because „We always did it this way, why would we ever do it differently?“
AkagamiBarto t1_irvoz6m wrote
I agree. They don't want to do it because it costs more.
Z-Mtn-Man-3394 t1_irx03rz wrote
The core reason we (humans) do everything wrong. Costs too much or doesn’t give a good return right away. So shortsighted
Madholm t1_irvj0ta wrote
Utility companies don’t own your rooftops so they cut down woodlands or convert farmlands for solar.
It’s bullshit; energy production needs to be stripped away from the private sector, they are bad actors.
[deleted] t1_irwq1ml wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_irvc2jx wrote
[removed]
ac9116 t1_irvh6ls wrote
Parking lots, large buildings, and manmade bodies of water (canals but especially reservoirs) should be the priority. Use unused space and reduce evaporation.
WrongSubFools t1_irur36y wrote
No, green spaces do not absorb much (or any) CO2 / release much oxygen. Yes, they take in some carbon and turn it into grass, but what happens to the grass? It's eaten or decays and is turned back into CO2. That is the balanced carbon cycle (the creation and burning of fossil fuels exists outside the balanced carbon cycle). The backlash against developing green spaces isn't about environmentalism, as environmentalism says the solar farms are good. It's about preserving a location because people like looking at it.
There is simply not enough roof space in all of Europe to meet solar goals. The article mentions this. Banning people from building solar plants on undeveloped land hugely limits solar's growth potential.
Shot-Job-8841 t1_irus2av wrote
Solar panels over the water actually helps fight droughts, but it can be slightly more expensive.
Orange_Tulip t1_iruy57t wrote
A lot of that carbon can actually be absorbed into the soil with good practices. Also, have you seen the massive flat roofs in business parks? All those big warehouses have plenty of space still. Let them strengthen the roof and place them there. There's no reason to build on fertile land yet. Keep land that's good for food production in production. Keep land that's good for biodiversity as wildlands. We're going to need both in the future.
WrongSubFools t1_iruzrch wrote
"Massive" is a relative term. Solar farms are hundreds of acres and occasionally even bigger than that, and the goal is to build solar farms bigger than we've ever made before.
Or, well we can say that solar power isn't a priority. But we can't say "we need solar power to avert the apocalypse" and also "oh, but let's only put panels so they cover ugly places."
Tacky-Terangreal t1_iruww5z wrote
So putting panels on every roof in Europe wouldnt meet solar energy goals. What a joke. Mainstream environmentalists would crawl across broken glass before admitting that nuclear is the superior, carbon-free energy source
Victor_2501 t1_irv4tq9 wrote
Same in Germany. Boomer parties are jumping on the bandwagon and implementing legislations that prevent building renewables anywhere and even if it takes 10 years for approval and start of construction. Meanwhile you are allowed to build a coal plant like 1km next to houses.
CriticalUnit t1_irv6fur wrote
Hey rip van winkle!
try out our new internet machines and look at the current German government and their energy policies. Boy are you in for a surprise!
Darkhoof t1_irvgzjh wrote
This is just ridiculous and an insidious strategy to delay the roll out of renewables to try to squeeze out a couple of years more on carbon intensive power sources. Considering that Europe is very reliant on import of gas this is just stupid.
In Portugal they actually sunlights th permitting process for solar plants, fortunately. It also helps that they are built in plains.
ravenous_bugblatter t1_irw4l0o wrote
In Australia our government is famously slow to change with the times. The citizens are ones who pushed for installation of solar on domestic roofs. European governments should incentivize there own rollout throughout suburbs.
CannoliIntoPussy OP t1_irui0g7 wrote
Need nuclear, now, stat. Long-term planning means starting nuclear projects today. It’s not that easy to hit 300 characters on this topic; nuclear has energy density unmatched by any other known energy source and, for that reason, it needs to be the future. NIMBYs will fight almost any energy source, and any means of energy transmission, tragically.
DM_me_ur_tacos t1_iruk4q6 wrote
Nuclear isn't even economical anymore compared to modern renewable options.
Moreover, PV technology has not plateaued -- conversion efficiency is still increasing and large scale manufacturing is still ramping up.
Zncon t1_irupcrg wrote
We cannot only think only of the cheapest ways of making power. It's critical to life and modern society that power stays on, and it's okay to pay a bit more for that.
CriticalUnit t1_irv6ae7 wrote
> It's critical to life and modern society that power stays on, and it's okay to pay a bit more for that.
Except when it doesn't stay on....
Google France, Belgium, japan etc for examples of the 'reliability'
EDIT: Downvoting doesn't make it any less true.
Icy-Confidence8018 t1_irvgu4e wrote
What in particular are you talking about? Mind finding me a link to something?
CriticalUnit t1_irvl6q3 wrote
> What in particular are you talking about?
That nuclear is not necessarily more reliable to "keep the power on".
https://www.ft.com/content/bce753b9-2b82-4895-a651-01ce91df7627
What exactly are you trying to say? We should all pay more for nuclear even though it obviously also has reliability issues? What are we paying extra for exactly?
LazyLizzy t1_irw46nr wrote
All these stories aren't pointing at nuclear being unreliable, all of these articles have issues that could also pop up in cheaper power productions as well.
The french one they discovered corrosion and crackign in critical cooling pipes that seems to have been a manufacturing defect. So they shut down similar reactors for inspection to be safe.
The one in Belgium had a short circuit in a critical component, again something that can easily happen with other productions of power.
To me it seems you hand picked these stories because they forwarded your goal, but you conveniently left out WHY these places were shut down hoping someone wouldn't actually read them. Coal and Natural gas plants are cheap to run (or used to be anyway) and they had issues all the time that required down time. It's just unfortunate that in these cases the faults that occurred are in critical systems so the whole reactor needed to be shut down until it can be fixed.
CriticalUnit t1_irzqsqi wrote
> all of these articles have issues that could also pop up in cheaper power productions as well.
That's exactly the point. Nuclear also has these same issues and isn't really more reliable than cheaper power production.
So why would we pay more and wait longer to build it?
>All these stories aren't pointing at nuclear being unreliable,
Well that long list of nuclear plants in those links that are shut down currently can't be relied on to produce power at the moment. Call it what you will...
LazyLizzy t1_is0i6em wrote
Except the point of nuclear is to replace coal and gas power plants with something much greener to help keep a strong stable power in the transmission lines.
CriticalUnit t1_is0sjdz wrote
Except the point of renewables is to replace coal and gas power plants with something much greener to help keep a strong stable power in the transmission lines.
Maybe you could list the ways you think new nuclear can do any of that better?
LazyLizzy t1_is1165j wrote
Thorium reactors and newer designs are incredibly efficient. On top of that nuclear waste isn't that big of a deal, there's plenty of places to keep it, but the biggest hurdle is people. Lot of people have boogeyman thoughst about anything nuclear thanks to Oil and Gas companies lobbying against it back in the 80's and 90's. I love renewables, I'm ready for them, however can they handle peak loads? Can they keep a stable output 24/7? We have to store excess power to help during peak loads or if something were to occur, what technoligies exist that's cost efficient and as good or better than just running a few nuclear plants in a region? Electrcity transmission for a country is complex and daunting and there's more to it than just "Plop some more turbines and solar panels".
CriticalUnit t1_is4l8j7 wrote
> Thorium reactors and newer designs are incredibly efficient
not where is counts. They aren't economically efficient (Expensive)
>I love renewables, I'm ready for them, however can they handle peak loads?
when enough are deployed, absolutley. There are plenty of countries where they already do.
>Can they keep a stable output 24/7?
Again, yes they can. Have a google of Costa Rica or Portugal.
>We have to store excess power to help during peak loads
Sure, we have to do that now too. Nuclear also requires you to o store excess power to help during peak loads because you can't economically operate them in a flexible manner.
>what technoligies exist that's cost efficient and as good or better than just running a few nuclear plants in a region?
Literally all of them. Have a look at some actual recent numbers. Even Residential Solar is now the same price as nuclear.
>Electrcity transmission for a country is complex and daunting and there's more to it than just "Plop some more turbines and solar panels".
Sure, that's a nice red herring. Let me spice it up:
Electricity transmission for a country is complex and daunting and there's more to it than just "Plop in some more nuclear plants".
Icy-Confidence8018 t1_irvtohu wrote
Nope. Just didn’t reveal anything when I looked. Thank you!
Rhonin- t1_irv3l4r wrote
Unless we can solve the renewable energy storage problem, reliable and constant energy sources like nuclear will keep being a necessity in the energy mix.
Able-Emotion4416 t1_irx1t2l wrote
If we were able to cooperate globally, we would already have an international super grid (loss of only about 1 to 5 percent energy per 1000 km(. And we would already have had huge solar panel parks in China's Gobi desert, in Australia, in India's desert, in the Sahara desert, and n the deserts of the Americas, and connecting them all. So that whenever it's night time in a region, that region imports solar power from regions that are exposed to the sun. Such a super grid would also allow to export excess energy from other renewables, and import when there's, for example, less wind.
Only about 100k km^2 of solar panels are enough to meet today's global demand. But we need two or three times more so they can be placed strategically over the world, and always be producing enough solar energy. Anyway, those 100k km square are about 1 percent of the Sahara Desert, and about 5 to 10 percent of the Great North American Desert). Also, keep in mind that the world would also supply wind, tidal, hydro and geothermal energy, among many others. So we don't even need 100k km square of panels...
jdthehuman16 t1_irup16j wrote
Would you know where I could read more about this?
DM_me_ur_tacos t1_irurd3v wrote
Here is a widely used energy cost comparison
And here is NREL's chart of PV efficiencies
bmac251 t1_irwrm9d wrote
While I’m happy to see renewables becoming increasingly cost effective year over year I take a bunch of issue with this commonly cited Lazard study.
First, it doesn’t address one of the biggest downsides of solar and wind: the downtime of energy generation. Nuclear runs 24/7 (assuming rotational maintenance scheduling). Renewables might offer alternatives during their peak generation times but with battery technology currently where it is, storing the residual energy for use during non generating times is difficult. Not to mention how this would require a change to the electrical grid (in USA, can’t speak to Europe).
Second, the subsidies that Lazard is “discounting” is for subsidies in electricity generation. They do not include heavy subsidies given to solar panel production. This is a bigger issue than most people realize because China is currently the biggest producer of solar panels and they are notorious for “dumping” (subsidizing panel production to the point where they are effectively selling it at a loss) which makes them cost competitive. Seeing as current solar panels (and wind turbines, though the turbines to my knowledge don’t have this dumping problem) have a lifespan that is a fraction of nuclear plants, this effect is magnified each time new panels are purchased.
Third, solar panels production is dirty. The utility scale, cost-effective version of solar panels cited in this study are almost exclusively made in China. With coal plants generating most of the energy to make them. To be fair this could also be said for materials used to make nuclear plants. However, the minerals used to make many solar panels (and more specifically, the batteries they need to store energy) are typically sourced from third world countries (eg: DRC) with poor track records on human rights. Often these minerals are called “conflict minerals” (similar to “blood diamonds”) for this reason. To be fair, the Congo (both countries) also sits on some of the largest known uranium deposits in the world. If nuclear were to be scaled to the point solar has been promoted to, it is reasonable to assume that the uranium would be sourced in a similarly unethical manner. This would necessitate recycling of spent nuclear rods, which is currently only done in France to my knowledge, and this would increase costs to generate nuclear energy.
Fourth, current nuclear plants can exist for 80 years. Admittedly I didn’t see how they accounted for this in the study so perhaps I’m ignorant here but often this isn’t accounted for when comparing the cost of a new nuclear plant and the energy it would generate versus a solar/wind alternative that would generate similar levels of energy.
Ultimately, I’m all for green energy. But I think it’s important to read through these studies diligently and do your own research to understand externalities that each source of energy has. The future should be a combination of solar, wind AND nuclear.
Edit: I am biased in favor of nuclear
DM_me_ur_tacos t1_irx8uli wrote
These are very reasonable points of contention.
It would indeed be interesting to include the cost of sufficient battery storage with PV/wind so that they can deliver closer to base load. But fast forward a decade and I suspect that the combination of variable pricing (market mechanism woo!) and people owning beefy EV batteries will shape demand to match variations in supply. Some utility scale smoothing will also help.
My impression is that the lackluster grid infrastructure and PV manufacturing in the US are strategic blunders that should and will be remedied. Even if utility power generation weren't to change, the transition to EVs and proliferation of residential solar are going to necessitate a modern grid. In my opinion, invoking the grid as a reason to hold back on renewables is like saying that cars aren't useful because we can't be bothered to pave our roads, so let's stick with horse buggies.
Also, something that I suspect isn't in the lazard study is that PV panels are increasingly recyclable. This is in big contrast to fuel supplies from a shady sources that are single use (uranium, petro). The scarce materials in PVs are catalysts that can and should be recovered and reused.
Edit: I'm biased towards renewables, but not a nuclear alarmist
bmac251 t1_irxbg2u wrote
Thanks for your insightful and level headed response. Like I said, I think the future is brighter with a combination of the renewables you prefer and nuclear I prefer. We can both agree fossil fuels should be phased out.
I’m inclined to agree with you about the future of battery storage will fundamentally change how renewables are marketed across the country and world. I only see their adoption increasing (and even more so as battery technology develops).
My point to the grid, and even more so US PV manufacturing, wasn’t meant to imply we shouldn’t be changing to these forms of energy. We will need a more modern grid one way or the other and there’s no doubt solar and wind will become bigger and bigger parts of this. We shouldn’t discount them now because of how things are. Rather, the point I was trying to make was that many studies I see that portray wind and solar as the future because of their “green-ness” or “cost competitiveness” with other forms of energy aren’t really apples to apples comparisons. I think this is usually due to the fact that accounting for all the little factors that go into building an entire nations energy supply is - unsurprisingly - a hugely difficult undertaking (I also try not to infer bad motives on people when a lack of understanding could also explain the result). My gripe is that I often see solar and wind studies like the one you listed used to promote policy when the study isn’t showing many of the important downsides. Oil and gas do the same thing when they always ignore favorable subsidies and accounting policies they use so as to skew their cost effectiveness. Again, I’m biased here, but I don’t see that same benefit of the doubt given to nuclear and often it seems like that’s due to some pathological fear of nuclear.
As for recycling PV, this is huge! I’m very happy to see this and I want to read up on it. I don’t think many people understand this is possible with solar or nuclear for that matter but I hope to spread the word on this.
FrozenIceman t1_irxyi4y wrote
You don't think Solar Panels and Lithium come from Shady sources in China?
DM_me_ur_tacos t1_iry74xz wrote
Like I said, it was a strategic blunder to allow China to get the headstart on PV manufacturing. But if their panels are cost effective it's not like energy investors are going to abort projects because they are Chinese.
In terms if lithium, some quick googling suggests that Chile and Australia have reserves and production that dwarf China's. So while I wouldn't want to depend entirely on Chinese lithium, that doesn't seem to be a problem or a reason to abandon renewables
FrozenIceman t1_iry7l53 wrote
I am not suggesting abandoning renewables.
I am suggesting that sketchy or immoral production chains are so common to every day life that it shouldn't even be considered.
But if you are considering changing production chains, it is easy enough to reopen Uranium mines around the globe or even more fun separate the Uranium in Desalination plants (It is like 300 tons of Uranium can be separated per year from our existing desalination plans).
[deleted] t1_irzfu5g wrote
[deleted]
routerg0d t1_irwuvn6 wrote
What happens to the area around a nuclear plant when it melts down vs what happens to a wind turbine that falls over? The risk/reward is not worth it period. Quit pretending that there’s zero ecological cost to nuclear they also use rare earth elements and carbon intensive construction methods. You also never seem to account for ten thousand years of storage costs of the material.
bmac251 t1_irx0djn wrote
What nuclear reactors are you talking about, exactly? Current generation nuclear reactors are practically impossible to melt down. Heck, even the three mile island and Fukushima reactors couldn’t melt down via a positive feedback loop like Chernobyl did. But even if you don’t buy that, I wouldn’t advocate for building nuclear reactors along a massive fault line or any other area prone to extreme natural disasters. Those seem like perfect places for wind/solar/geothermal/etc.
As for the rare earth metals: sure nuclear uses them too. But the scale is not even comparable. Every single solar panel uses them, whereas every nuclear reactor also uses other REMs. The difference? Nuclear is orders of magnitude more energy dense. The need for as many REMs to produce comparable energy at scale is not even close. Nobody is, or should, claim that any energy source is 100% clean and free of external costs. But each one needs to be compared based on its comparative merits and costs. There isn’t a one size fits all policy to meeting global energy needs. Yet for whatever reason, the solar and wind proponents seem to think that’s all we need.
And finally, for storage. Currently we throw the spent nuclear waste into a mine built kilometers underground below a mountain. There is literally no human health risk related to this storage solution. Each American would require roughly one soda cans worth of nuclear fuel to power their entire lifetimes worth of energy. To put that into perspective that’s a couple fully filled football fields worth of spent fuel we would need for all of America to store which is currently feasible with existing mines we have. We could even take the entire planets waste, store it in this way, and still barely make a dent in our storage potential for this waste. Or we can recycle most of it, using the process the French employ.
I’m not pretending anything. I try to live in reality and not convince myself that a bunch of windmills and solar panels will solve an increasingly electrified worlds problems.
StumbleNOLA t1_irusfew wrote
The best source is from Lazard
FrozenIceman t1_irxyaxe wrote
This isn't true at all. In Europe Nuclear is about the same price per KWH as industrial solar (I.E. Solar farms, the roof top ones are far less efficient).
https://www.iea.org/reports/projected-costs-of-generating-electricity-2020
On top of that the West put in lots of intentional blockers for Nuclear Development to slow its progress (and in turn raise prices). Places like India and China that are actively producing 20+ Nuclear reactors at the same time are actually helped by their government rather than slowed down which would in turn reduce cost even further.
[deleted] t1_irusv92 wrote
This was hilarious. PV has not plateaued because of…. Investment? Research? Top institutions studying it? Lol you’re comparing technology made in 50s to stuff 70 years later.
DM_me_ur_tacos t1_iruulh8 wrote
It's hard to understand what you mean...
But you can go read the lazard reports, linked in other comments, to see the cost comparison.
[deleted] t1_is5cdqk wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_iruupf9 wrote
I’ve well aware. I’m happy technology from 2020 can beat reactors designed in the 50s, otherwise, we’d be fuck. You do understand solar has 20-50x the research investment, right?
Aether_Breeze t1_irvgxnz wrote
It doesn't matter the reason why one is better but surely using the better option still makes sense? Of course we should be building nuclear as well because it gives a stable base production for the grid.
If you are saying nuclear could be better so we should not build solar until we have researched better nuclear...then we should wait for fusion or maybe a Dyson sphere.
Honestly I don't even think we have the time to care, maybe we shouldn't be covering these areas with panels but at this point we have left it so long we just need to start doing something.
Perfect is the enemy of good.
[deleted] t1_irzgz4n wrote
[removed]
gullible_guy t1_irusdlo wrote
Yes...yes it is. The problem is "renewable" are so subsidized its insane.
crbatey22 t1_iruyaj1 wrote
Fossil fuel subsidies in the corner looking nervously at your comment!
2019 fossil fuel subsidies = $500 billion
2019 renewable energy subsidies = $177 billion
Happyhotel t1_irv2wl1 wrote
Ok, but now lets get those stats in dollars/amount of energy generated.
crbatey22 t1_irvrvui wrote
The global energy spread from 2019 was:
Fossil fuel = 63.3% Nuclear = 26.3% Renewables = 10.4%
Based on the total global energy subsidies in 2019 ,
Renewables received 26% of total subsidies and generated 10.4% of global energy. A return of 0.4%
Fossil fuels received 73% of total subsidies and generated 63.3% of global energy. A return of 0.87%
So for 2019, investment in fossil fuels paid for almost twice as much energy generation when compared to renewables.
What is also interesting to look at however, is the rate of adoption of renewables. The fastest adopter of renewables by far is china, who outpace the USA almost 3 to 1. So while china is opening new coal plants to keep their production going in the short term, they are investing heavily in renewables for the long term.
2021 renewable energy spread for different countries
China 44% renewable, 2.4% nuclear 46% total
Europe 37% renewable, 26% nuclear 63% total
USA 20.1% renewable, 18% nuclear 38% total.
gullible_guy t1_irw6u0q wrote
Once again, a subsidy is not a tax break.
crbatey22 t1_irws2ov wrote
I’m not sure I understood your comment completely.
Both fossil fuels and renewables are subsidized to a greater or lesser degree depending on location.
These subsidies can be direct payment, or in the form of tax breaks, or indirect incentives based on land usage.
In this situation, my feeling is that, as subsidies are happening for all energy production, it would be better to feed the majority of these subsidies into renewables in order to hasten the transition.
The current energy crisis in Europe really highlights why regions should transition to an energy independent model, just from a geopolitical perspective. Being beholden to Russian gas has not made for an easy winter here. Considering the geography of Europe, a mix of solar, hydro, wind, geothermal and nuclear is would certainly meet all of our energy needs if implemented correctly. The only thing stopping this was financial and political will. With the current situation, this will has finally come, and it is likely the transition will be rapid
gullible_guy t1_iryut8y wrote
Tax break is not a subsidy.
Not taking peoples money is not the same as taking money from someone and giving it to others.
RE Europe: Trump LITERALLY told them not to do what they did.
crbatey22 t1_irzkxmm wrote
Understood. It’s my fault for not being clear in my language.
‘Receiving subsidies’ does require the subject in question to be given money, or another object of recompense.
Both fossil fuel production and renewable production receive subsidies.
‘Being subsidized’ is a catch all term to indicate a subject is supported in their actions, not only through direct capital, but also through reduction in CAPEX via tax breaks, advantageous loan terms, cheap land usage rates etc…
Both fossil fuel and renewables are being subsidized in this manner.
Concerning Trump. If he did say it, He was right to tell Europe (and let’s be clear here, in this case it is mostly German industry that is dependent on this) not to hitch their wagon to Russian oil.
But it is a comment that is two decades out of date. German industrialist have been in close ties with Russia since the 90s. Maybe Clinton have the same advice?
Again. The whole point is that fossil fuels, renewables, and most major industries to a greater or lesser degree, are subsidized in one fashion or another.
At the moment, fossil fuels tend to receive vast more subsidization when compared to renewables, and by virtue of them being a long established technology, have received huge amounts of cumulative subsidization.
The fact that renewables are now receiving significant subsidized support, even if the $ to KWh is lower than for fossil fuels, is still a good thing in my opinion. Renewable sources, particularly wind and solar, are a relatively new tech and are making annual leaps in efficiency and cost per KWh.
Offshore wind is a huge EU industry, which is now able to supply almost all of some EU countries energy needs (Denmark). In addition it creates manufacturing jobs, installation jobs, jobs for shipping and doc workers, and it is helping to transition fishing workers to a more sustainable model.
Right now for cheap solar, globally china is king of production. Here is where I see a familiar problem looming. Having one country produce the majority of solar capacity, starts to look familiar to oil and gas monopolies (OPEC). It could certainly use some diversity.
The negatives of all this (aside from lack of baseline capacity without investment in Nuclear energy, not a problem for me in France) is that any energy production requiers a degree of environmental damage and CO2 production. Wind turbines are heavy concrete, copper and plastic users. Particularly off shore. Solar panels are less problematic as they are almost entirely silicone from sand to make the glass. They do use rare earth minerals which can be destructive to mine and politically difficult depending on where they are. However, spent solar panel recycling has already started at small scale.
The key takeaway is that, as a species, we have to get off the oil and gas eventually. For several reasons.
- It produces CO2 which will change the climate. Probably creating mass migration from central latitudes and a socioeconomic crisis.
- It is inherently polluting. Aside from CO2, burning fossil fuels creates atmospheric Polly that harms health and stresses medical infrastructure.
- It’s a finite resource that will not be created again and cannot be recycled. It will run out. Maybe not for us. But for our children. Or children’s children.
- Local energy independence. Being dependent on hostile neighbors to keep the lights on is inherently bad.
gullible_guy t1_is0zuyn wrote
Giving money to a company to support its product and bring down costs, is not the same as not taking money from that company. PERIOD.
crbatey22 t1_is1g0mo wrote
Fine. Then call the tax break side of things ‘incentives’. It really doesn’t make a difference and is just semantics.
Both fossil fuel providers and renewable providers receive both ‘subsidies’ and ‘incentives’.
Do you not think that, knowing what we know now, and considering the global situation, those ‘incentives’ and ‘subsidies’ should go to renewables (and in my opinion, nuclear) rather than fossil fuels?
gullible_guy t1_is1hqpo wrote
No, it isn't just "semantics"
What "global situation"?
Again, not taxing someone, is not the same as taking tax dollars from other people and giving them to another person.
I do agree we should be pushing Nuclear tech, its the only 100% thing that both sides should agree on as its the cleanest and safest form of energy we have right now.
Renewables are not real yet. Tech is getting closer, but i drive though somerset daily, and 50% of the days the shit ain't even spinning.
"renewables" are not cleaner when you look at the overall contribution to negative environmental impacts.
Its honestly just a way to funnel money into peoples pockets.
aka Solyndra.(google it you might be too young)
crbatey22 t1_is1ouwm wrote
I was not aware of Solyndra, but probably because it was a US firm. I am in France. Also I’m 37?!
The global situation I’m talking about is the effect that human CO2 emissions are having on the climate, alongside the unstable geopolitical situation faced by many countries being beholden to the Petrodollar and the whims of OPEC, or relying on mafias masquerading as national gouvernements (aka Russia) for your energy supply.
With regards to renewables not being ready. Quite honestly that’s just incorrect. Countries that have invested heavily in offshore wind, solar and hydro are regularly able to cover all of their energy needs using only renewables.
Where renewables are lacking is in energy storage. But this is a well known problem, hence the need for nuclear to bridge the gaps.
Your comment concerning wind turbines not turning is really indicative of your lack of knowledge of energy grids. When turbines are not turning, generally it is because there is a lack of energy demand in an area that has coal or gas plants as their main source of power. These types of plants cannot be shut down and restarted quickly to deal with fluctuations in demand, so the wind turbines get shut off in their place.
Your comment about CO2 emissions in construction is correct. Particularly for offshore wind, which uses around 10 times more concrete than a coal plant to construct. But the efficiency and output of wind turbines in particular are increasing year on year, resulting in a shorter and shorter CO2 payback/break even period. Where’s coal/gas plants only have increasing emissions throughout their life, and are even worse when mining and materials transport for the life of the plant is accounted for.
Surprisingly, nuclear plants have the lowest concrete usage on average for new construction, and their only ongoing CO2 emissions are due to transport of materials, which is minuscule.
The problem French nuclear plants increasingly face at the moment (aside from maintenance worker strikes and unexpected shutdowns due to inspection findings) is cooling issues during summer months. We have had record summer heat waves year on year for the past decade, resulting in severe drought and hotter rivers. The cooling capacity of the rivers that cool the plants is getting closer and closer to the delta limit every year.
Your comment about ‘both sides’ getting behind nuclear is specifically a US issue. EU politics is far less binary.
Saying all of this. If you want to criticize subsidies. Criticize those fed to the automotive industry. In 2008 it was bailouts for US car manufacturers who were fiscally irresponsible. Following that, it was the extent the German government propped up VW/Audi before/during/after the emission scandale. Now it’s the push for electric cars, financed by subsidies and tax incentives. Take all of this money. Invest it in public transport infrastructure.
gullible_guy t1_irw6rfa wrote
Tax Reductions are not Subsidies.
[deleted] t1_irx1zo1 wrote
[removed]
LarryGumball t1_irutd8r wrote
I like nuclear, but let's be clear it too is also subsidized, pretty much any energy generation is heavily subsidized. Renewable energy is worth focusing on, it's just they are willing to ignore nuclear benefits while reopening coal and oil plants to shut down nuclear. That boggles me, Renewable is cheaper long run, but nuclear is better than the others till we have a good renewable way to store energy.
​
For the person who down-voted me. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=41534 this is ofc only for the USA, but I have another for Japan and sure I can find others. All Energy is subsidized. it's just by how much.
Tacky-Terangreal t1_irux3pk wrote
And it has to be supported by natural gas lmfao
This is why the environmentalist movement is a joke. A real solution is staring us all in the face but they want to indulge their stupid fantasies. I saw a guy in this thread saying that putting solar panels on every roof in Europe wouldn’t be enough and we should build more solar panels 🤦♀️
d3kk t1_iruq5b9 wrote
Need that Nuclear fusion reactor research to succeed AND need that Finnish nuclear disposal waste project to extand to around the world so the waste can be burried safely and it to need no maintenance.
edit: spelling
DracoFreon t1_irv1t2o wrote
For 50 years I've been asking: Where are you going to put the waste?
Extremely-Bad-Idea t1_iruk4yn wrote
Ever heard of Chernobyl and Fukushima?
smellyseamus t1_irun2v3 wrote
Ever heard of the hundreds of nuclear power plants around the world that have had no issues whatsoever during their operational lifespan?
[deleted] t1_iruni81 wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_irur7fu wrote
[removed]
LarryGumball t1_irusod5 wrote
I see your statement on some news sites, however is there anything with the math/science to back it up as that looks like the numbers during the explosions, and Most of radioactive materials are short-lived ones, which there was indeed a chance of massive danger for Europe, mostly the ones closer to the explosion depending on the winds due to a second explosion, the rest of Europe would've encountered a increase similar to a X-ray/Cat-scan. Overall even including that disaster, Nuclear counts to 1/5 of coal and natural gas for radiation per UNSCEAR .
I would also like to add the pollution generated by coal and factories in china, has been recorded to reach California and is thought to contribute 65% more smog ~35% of it being from coal burning. Which again contains radioactive isotopes. Worldwide I would love to see total radiation increases due to various activity's and naturally.
Optix334 t1_irv23il wrote
You won't ever get a source because it's not true. The only place emitting that much radiation was basically in the middle of the reactor where humans would never go anyway.
And on top of it, nothing nuclear even exploded. It was a steam explosion. The explosion caused a meltdown which, as you mentioned, was very radioactive for a very short time. The meltdown caused the reactor to stop reacting, as we would expect.
And the final cherry on top is that less than 100 deaths can be positively linked to this over 4 decades. The rest is bad science, inconclusive data, and fear mongering. Google the solar deaths in the same timeframe.
But we still get the ignorance all over the place, and we'll end up putting it off right until the last moment when renewables can't power industry well enough to keep up with maintenance and replacements, or we run out of neodymium for wind turbines, or we poison the land with cobalt from a solar panel accident of some kind.
UncommercializedKat t1_irusidx wrote
The thing that keeps nuclear energy dangerous is fear of nuclear disaster which prevents new safe reactors from being built and instead we have to rely on aging nuclear reactors.
I don't disagree with the facts in your first two paragraphs or that existing nuclear reactors are incredibly dangerous. For those that don't know, much safer reactor technology exists. The nuclear fuel is self-regulating so the chance of meltdown is almost zero.
LarryGumball t1_iruoysf wrote
Ah yes, the basically a bathtub with nuclear materials with almost no good design by the same people who gave them detectors that didn't even go to the level of the radiation, and the disaster of a 1960's tech reactor built in 1970's with a 9.0 that happens globally maybe 1-3 times ~ a century. Which was partly caused by generators running out of fuel, due to flooding.
Honestly a massive issue, however just like solar, nuclear has had massive improvements in both design efficiency and safety, which isn't surprising seeing as the designs being from nearly only 15 years from the first use of nuclear in the form of a bomb.. it's negative effects are indeed horrid but have caused less radioactive side effects than coal which contain radioactive isotopes.
People point to these and three mile island yet even so, the amount of death caused by them which again is using rather old designs is lower than that of the coal mining and burning that happens throughout the world.
Let alone the newer designs that are molten salt based and smaller scale, people maybe scared of them from the past, but still drive cars and use pressure cookers, one which is technically using small explosions to propel itself forward and the other a cooking device that if improperly handled/built is basically a bomb. But consistent design lessons have made both safe.
Only issue is you can't redesign a nuclear facility quickly, partly from design, and partly due to people being so against them.
Please have a open mind to technology that is still a great way to augment Solar/Wind/Geo/Dam based energies, since modern reactors can also bring energy generation up and down faster than before. They can be used when the winds not flowing and the suns hiding.
Deepdiver666 t1_iruo54e wrote
I hate nuke plants
FuturologyBot t1_irumdq7 wrote
The following submission statement was provided by /u/CannoliIntoPussy:
Need nuclear, now, stat. Long-term planning means starting nuclear projects today. It’s not that easy to hit 300 characters on this topic; nuclear has energy density unmatched by any other known energy source and, for that reason, it needs to be the future. NIMBYs will fight almost any energy source, and any means of energy transmission, tragically.
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/y0y6ry/solar_rollout_rouses_resistance_in_europes/irui0g7/
[deleted] t1_iruuapv wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_irvr6sm wrote
[removed]
L1xs t1_irwp9d6 wrote
Smooth brain here, besides solar panels why haven't Tulip-style wind generators caught on? Are they bad? I think wind generation all day and all night in my area when it is -30 and little to no sunlight would be either decent or better. How many tulips would you need to have in order to match solar?
routerg0d t1_irwvk74 wrote
Build solar at the poles with proper transmission and you could power the world 24/7.
Geothermal with the new mmWave drills is the real answer here. This new drill can get down deeper and cheaper than conventional drills and makes it where you can build geothermal in any location. The best part is the drill produces its own casing as it goes down.
There are options other than nuclear that work 24/7 and have near zero risks.
[deleted] t1_irxivl3 wrote
[removed]
L_knight316 t1_irxjay2 wrote
F U C K I N G
N U C L E A R
COME ON!
Why is this so freaking hard? It is probably the single most effective source of energy we have and all people can think about is a half century old accident built on incompetence and corruption and another that required a damn tsunami and earthquake in combination to cause.
[deleted] t1_is5cmha wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_irxs153 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iryg6um wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_is02xvp wrote
[removed]
SnooRadishes6544 t1_irvxgbe wrote
Classic regulations getting in the way of our own progress
Rad_Dad6969 t1_irxoqyi wrote
Both Should be a priority. Fuck WSJ for using environmentalism to write a hit piece on another form of environmentalism. Green space is likely more profitable for the state economy in the long run, it's just that the benefits are spread more evenly and harder to corrupt.
[deleted] t1_irurwat wrote
Ah and where are your nuclear power plants to prevent this issue? Nowhere to be seen. Team green has literally gone full circle and shot them selves in the foot
Tacky-Terangreal t1_irux8gc wrote
My favorite part is the fact that they keep decommissioning nuclear power plants as Europe approaches energy disaster. Russian oil and gas is bad and evil but we’re still gonna buy it because wind and solar consistently fail to support power demands. Clown world
Tupcek t1_irutou7 wrote
well, what nobody talks about, is utter nature destruction for hundreds of years if not more when mining uranium. And since it is a field you need to destroy more of the nature every year
LarryGumball t1_iruun3x wrote
Data please? https://www.epa.gov/radtown/radioactive-waste-uranium-mining-and-milling per this information there is almost no long term issues if done properly, as the material is well naturally occurring and will produce radon gas, which is a issue anywhere you build underground. the main issue I see is improper storage/disposal that was stated in the article, that causes it to be more concentrated. which OFC we now have laws and regulations for these after learning about them.
Overall these are issues that should be fixed still, but I see nothing about destruction for hundreds of years, that also wouldn't apply to ANY mined substance, Which includes those that are for Renewable energies.
Tupcek t1_iruwihm wrote
it is even in your source,, though conveniently skipped:
“Mill tailings and raffinates are stored in specially designed ponds called impoundments. The tailings remain radioactive and contain hazardous chemicals from the recovery process.”
we have one of the largest untapped uranium deposits in Europe about 20km out of my city - while it would pose no danger to the city, thanks to modern containment methods; we could no longer go hiking to the nature anywhere near the site, since there will be radioactive ponds that remains radioactive for a long time. That’s why no mining started and it won’t start. We are luckily from EU country, where corporations can’t waste human lives and nature absolutely disregarding any human or nature needs, but it’s not like that everywhere and in many places, when there is an ore, that location gets closed off and people just won’t go there for hundreds of years. It’s an electricity for rich (poor countries don’t have nuclear reactors) in exchange for poor man’s land.
After mining other types of ore, country can be revitalized, since it’s not radioactive. That’s not true for uranium.
[deleted] t1_irvdv3r wrote
[deleted]
LarryGumball t1_irv5er4 wrote
Since I'm still awake failuring to sleep. Here's the big question. Are the ponds radioactive enough to be significant (ie produce enough to radiation to be dangerous to the wildlife). As I have yet to locate documentation on it but I also haven't dove for it yet. I will say I have indeed been able to source others on radioactivity been a boon for the environment due to the exact reason your upset. And that's humans avoid the area causing nature to thrive. As humans especially young, or disrespectful (ie yes the trashy type of person American or not who litters) is ultimately more toxic than a little pile of radioactive material. As again this is naturally occurring substances that have been brought to the surface and concentred with the primary radioactive material being taken away.
And to counter your Eu country statement, that only applies to within your county as I can talk about the European Ewaste that is shipped and processed in Africa including children burning the plastic off of copper wires for recycling. But I'm sure it's ok because it's not happening in Europe. It's ok for poor countries to suffer both the mining processing and recycling of Europe's waste and for it to not count as damaging the environment because it's not happening in European land? Let's drop the bull and point out Europe uses processed materials that are mined and artificial materials that are made via complex chemical chains. All we can do worldwide is reduce the harm and I agree Europe does a good job at producing a good standard of living.
If we wanted to get into the negatives of American I can spend all day as well. But on the topic of radioactive materials unless you can provide proof that it's scaring the land for hundreds of years. I can say it technically is protecting it. Ofc I'll try and see if I can find anything about if it is truelly negative or not tomorrow but would gladly love a article providing proof of it being bad. Instead of saying anything radioactive means hundreds of years of damage. As it depends on the levels of radiation for it to be bad.
Tupcek t1_irv7drx wrote
well, by your logic, Chernobyl was great, because radioactive deaths of animals doesn’t matter (because more gets born) and it’s positive environment because there are no people.
By that logic, let’s start nuclear war, it would be best for environment.
And who said it’s OK to send waste to poor countries? I didn’t for sure. I am against uranium mining and against open burning toxic waste.
Mining of minerals can be done environmentally friendly and without any abuse or long term damage. Of course, many times it isn’t. But that’s political and economical problem, not something that can’t be overcome. You can mine those and you can do it sustainably. You can’t mine uranium without radioactive lakes
LarryGumball t1_irw90jd wrote
Love the comparing of piles of inert stone that is naturally occurring and my statement if they are within non damaging limits of radioactive being fine to the worst known nuclear issue in human history. Cell towers, Cell phones, Radios, etc are all using radio waves which is propagation that can basically be considered radioactive. all of these may be a issue but the value is deemed worth it and the added radioactive effect is considered negligible in the long term.
I pointed it out as your smug self, pointed out your glad no mining is being done in your country that has the ability to mine the material within regulations and ensure the regulations are upheld in a way that the materials would not be negative to the environment , but Don't so you can hike. However European society is still using materials that are mined, and companies from Europe still ship waste elsewhere (I will point out Europe has laws against the exports but reality is it still happens). So it is mocking of lessers to be smug about it. That most of that waste isn't even radioactive but that we as a global society all have issues, and not to pretend that just because one isn't directly involved that they better than another who is.
My ultimate point is every human takes in 5-6 SV of radiation a year, animals as well, are these radioactive lakes harmful or not? If they are can they be rendered non-harmful? if so regulation should be required to make them non-harmful. After all the substances the make these lakes are still naturally occurring materials and not the same materials being used as fuel as they still need to be "enriched" to a level where they would be toxic to life, which is a whole other part of the debate.
Hell early fire detectors use a sensor and radioactive material to detect smoke between them. Hospitals use materials as well. Heck one of the INES T5 issues of nuclear was the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goi%C3%A2nia_accident . We use radioactive materials in day to day life that still need sources. Why demonize a material that can be less harmful than coal and oil? That we will likely still need in the future if we ever go to space?
On the Wildlife https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/how-chernobyl-has-become-unexpected-haven-wildlife Yes, Wildlife is safer in radioactive wastelands, compared to being near humans. IF the radiation is below the threshold to be negative to life. This isn't a comment talking about the goods of radioactivity, just that of humanity being more toxic to nature than literal toxic materials.
Tupcek t1_irwg8ue wrote
well, if you want radioactive lakes, we can start mining and export it to your backyard. It’s OK, right?
And no, it’s not piles of inert stone that is naturally occurring. It’s heavily radioactive waste lakes that occur by processing uranium and it emits orders of magnitude more radiation. Comparing it to cell phones is just a joke - go ahead and take a walk near any of that lake, it’s just a radiation, right? no big deal. It’s like comparing someone bumping into you while walking to car going 300km/h hitting you. It’s the same, right? Both is just a touch.
And why do you thing I am smug? I am grateful that mining of uranium didn’t happen here and I wish everybody had a government like this. I do not support toxic mining and toxic waste anywhere, nor do I support exporting our shit elsewhere. Just because there are some problem (waste export) I should be OK with any other problem (radioactive lakes)?
and to your last question: yes, this radiation is much higher and are harmful to anyone getting close. It’s not nearly levels of anything naturally occuring. It is considered safe because it is contained within area and do not leak to places where people live. But it remains radioactive and is closed to public basically forever.
edit: I can’t comment about all types of mining - depending on where the ore is located different processes are used. In here, company that asked for permits stated that the area will be closed even long after they stop mining. There were protests and city didn’t grant the permission
LarryGumball t1_irwns6o wrote
Honestly depending I would be fine with it as I already live near a fertilizer byproduct site (https://www.epa.gov/radtown/radioactive-material-fertilizer-production) which also produces radioactive radon, and yes it is piles of inert rock that is naturally occurring otherwise we wouldn't be mining it.... That data shows 85% radioactivity of the natural uranium, unknown on the halflife due to it not being the direct material. the chemicals are that of removing the uranium from the stone that it is in and then leaving it in a giant pile aka lake.
*correction (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3653646/) this shows the halflife will be 76000 years however modern methods are to cover the lake with clay and soil and plant trees atop it. Along with https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/sites/toxzine/uranium_toxzine.html pointing out the material is already pretty much everywhere, it's just the question of dosage, which the mines on record (which were produced prior to current methods of containment) are massive issues due to improper storage are mainly a issue due to increased radon gas generation due to the fine milling but are countered by the clay burial which reduces the amount of radon gas released to a more natural level. These materials also are potential sources for reprocessing in order to be used as fuel for newer generation reactors designed to take these long term wastes and generate shorter term wastes with half-lifes that are a hundred to a decade long. So you can use millennia instead, with the radon gas issue being questionable unless modern methods are confirmed functional solution. This does not mean that radon gas would not have formed without the mine, just that it's more exposed due to being on the surface instead of underground*
Overall if your vision of these lakes is that of instant death. I think you fail to understand how radioactive materials work. It's better comparison is sunlight because, sunlight is a product of a nuclear reaction and is the radiation from the sun...
Too much of it is bad for you, however it's not going to instantly kill you, unless you use concave reflection and build a lazer.
And the comparison to cell towers is not a joke, they literally work by radio frequency, and the full spectrum of frequency is radiating the entire population almost nonstop. Point being is your willing to accept a certain tolerance level of radiation and if the lakes of material matched that then you in theory shouldn't have a issue with it.
Again the material MINED FROM THE EARTH IE FROM NATURE is different then the material being used IN ENERGY GENERATION. and the left over lake is the lesser radioactive material.
Not mining it means it's still in the ground. The Left over material is not more radioactive, but less. it's a issue because it's no longer underground, but now on the surface meaning there's less of a barrier. BUT IS IT STILL NATURALLY OCCURRING.
If your willing to argue something found in nature is not natural.I don't know what to say.
And again the smugness is being happy and proud at having "nontainted" land. The materials for modern technology have to be obtained from somewhere so if you benefit from it, be it Medical or otherform, but refuse for the mining to be in your backyard, but instead others then I have say how you state it gives off smug vibes unless your stating it with no pride.
Overall I assume you've already made up your mind as at this point your ignoring science and going off what you feel. I am just trying to state with science and math we can do calculations to show exactly how harmful these lakes are. Which when first produced are harmful (but i have yet to locate a source by how much short of the 85% of natural uranium ), and I would love to see data on how harmful and for how long. As you have yet to bring ANY DATA to this argument. So I bid you a good day, unless you can bring said evidence that it from mining toxic to all life for hundreds of years as your initial statement was. preferred a government site European or American, or a scientific paper with stats.
Optix334 t1_irv28km wrote
Now google the same thing for Lithium, needed for batteries.
And cobalt, needed for solar panels.
Maybe we can power the world with wind for a little bit before we run out of neodymium.
Tupcek t1_irv3oro wrote
yeah, for Lithium, main concern is water usage.
Seems like excessive water usage is better than radioactive pond for decades, or is it not?
and as for the cobalt, there does not seems to be any environmental problems mining cobalt at all?
Yes, workers are treated poorly, but that has nothing to do with what type of mineral is mined. That’s more of an political issue, rather than destroying nature for centuries, which is clearly an environmental issue
Optix334 t1_irzuucf wrote
> yeah, for Lithium, main concern is water usage. > Seems like excessive water usage is better than radioactive pond for decades, or is it not?
See my other reply to you. Bad faith "research" doesn't make you correct.
> and as for the cobalt, there does not seems to be any environmental problems mining cobalt at all?
You know next to nothing about solar power if you think mining cobalt was the concern here. You're sitting here worried about radiation leaking into the environment, but not a very toxic and virtually un-cleanable substance used in every PV solar panel? Mining it is fine. When one of the hundreds of thousands of panels has a leak and kill off all living things in the surrounding area, or at least makes them unable to reproduce, induces neuropathy, makes you randomly lose your hearing and vision, spikes your cognitive decline, or any one of the other crazy side effects associated with cobalt poisoning, then you start to worry. Its literally more lethal than radiation poisoning, and most of the time more painful. Keeping in mind the studies here were originally conducted with the amount of cobalt used in hip implants. How much do you think this scales with those hundreds of thousands of solar panels, each containing some?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7842236/
> Yes, workers are treated poorly, but that has nothing to do with what type of mineral is mined. That’s more of an political issue, rather than destroying nature for centuries, which is clearly an environmental issue
I wasn't even talking about this, but its a good point to bring up. Workers being treated like shit is horrible. Destroying the environment is horrible. Cobalt will do that permanently.
Nuclear meltdowns however? Well I suggest you look into how life in what I'll call "The scary zone" of Chernobyl is doing. Hint: Creature for creature, plant for plant, they are all doing way better than their cousins outside of the region. Studies are ongoing to see if its just the absence of humans or if the radiation has any part to play in that. IMO its obviously the former, but its an interesting topic nonetheless.
Still I have to ask, given the link below (and assuming you will actually look into the issue with a genuine interest in being accurate rather than just playing politics cause its reddit), exactly what permanent damage has any nuclear power plant caused? I'll wait.
https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/how-chernobyl-has-become-unexpected-haven-wildlife
Now can we stop with the bad faith arguments that are demonstrably incorrect? Renewables are more toxic and harmful to the environment by far. People just pretend they aren't because most of the harmful parts come in the manufacturing step of making these things. People ignore the rest, and we haven't had a big enough PV farm where just a few of the panels leeching cobalt into the environment has caused large amounts of human suffering.
Tacky-Terangreal t1_iruxb9k wrote
Oh yeah and solar panels are built only to the highest ethical standards. Those Chinese kids mining that lithium took pride in their work goddammit! Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m taking a ride in my Tesla you peasants
netz_pirat t1_irv2m1h wrote
Solar panels made out of lithium?
Yeah, sure.
ISpikInglisVeriBest t1_irv51mr wrote
Solar is useless without lithium batteries for storage, but I think they meant cobalt in this case
netz_pirat t1_irv9ngd wrote
No it's not. For grid level stora, there are plenty of options without lithium. Redox flow, or iron/air comes to mind.
Also, if we cover daytime use with solar, we've already covered quite a big chunk of our energy useage.
Tupcek t1_iruyipx wrote
well, one doesn’t destroy environment for hundreds of years
Optix334 t1_irv2b77 wrote
Lithium mining literally does permanent harm to the area and is incredibly toxic, with those toxins dumped just like anything else.
Tupcek t1_irv3vvv wrote
permanent harm to the area? All I found is that main concern in lithium mining is that it needs a lot of water and that’s all
Optix334 t1_irztxpj wrote
It makes Soil unusable and pollutes water sources with heavy metals while making the air around the area physically harmful to breather.
Then refining it is one of the more toxic processes of all metal refining.
You didn't try to find anything. Even just reading the Wikipedia page gives you more credible sources on the damage it causes, and its obviously way more than "It uses lots of water". Come on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impacts_of_lithium-ion_batteries
Like did you read the first couple sentences and skip the "many accounts of dead animals and ruined farms in the surrounding areas of many of these mines. In Tagong, a small town in Garzê Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture China, there are records of dead fish and large animals floating down some of the rivers near the Tibetan mines. After further investigation, researchers found that this may have been caused by leakage of evaporation pools that sit for months and sometimes even years"?
[deleted] t1_irv4pgi wrote
Sounds like you are poorly informed and confused.
Extremely-Bad-Idea t1_irujwuc wrote
Solar panels are best situated on top of existing structures, like on the roof of a house or office building.
Replacing green space with solar panels is never a good idea. In addition to its natural beauty, green space absorb CO2 and emits O2 through photosynthesis.
Promoting solar energy does not mean destroying green space and causing environmental damage.