Solar panels take a lot of space and shadows ecosystems reliant on sun light.
Wind turbines kill birds and are noisy.
Dams remove water sources from ecosystems and communities reliant on them.
Fusion/nuclear/fission pose security risks.
Oil/coal power puts CO2 and pollutants into the air.
The last one has global consequences and the first 4 only have local consequences that depend on circumstances.
Edit: hey everyone, the point of this comment was not to shit on renewables or to paint them as equal to non renewables. I admit that the arguments I made are not the best. They didn’t come from thorough analysis, but it also wasn’t the point. The point is just that there is a case for fusion/fission too. One doesn’t have to exclude the other. Many renewables are time sensitive and depend on the environment. They are great and absolutely should we invest in it! I just don’t subscribe to the idea that we should shoot down fusion/fission.
Visit a wind farm. You will find far more dead birds at the base of a glass office building. Last summer I walked through a farm of 16 wind turbines and never saw a dead bird.
The amount of birds that actually get killed by wind turbines has always been dubious at best. And having been next to a wind turbine, they really aren’t that noisy.
That’s my point. The social benefit of renewables are environmentally and temporally differentiating. It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t invest in them! We definitely should, and likely more than we do. But all I’m saying if you were to calculate the environmental and societal long run costs, I believe there must be places and situations where fission/fusion is preferred sometimes.
For example when Russia invaded Ukraine and they attacked Chernobyl. Maybe it’s not founded in real risk. But I imagine it could be a security threat for someone to bomb a nuclear facility.
To alleviate your concerns - unlike fission, in a fusion reactor the only radiation comes from the active fusion process, and chamber lining that’s been bombarded by radiation. The worst case is a brief spike of neutron and gamma radiation from where the chamber breaches before the plasma collapses, a small amount of short-lived radioisotopes from the chamber debris, and a bit of tritium.
The radiation from the debris would be at background levels in a year or two, since there’s no transuranic decay chains (once decay event, and it’s stable again). The tritium would disperse to background levels in minutes, and the radiation burst would only be a hazard in the immediate vicinity.
Not free from issues at all, but compared to a fission reactor the worst-case scenario isn’t bad at all.
All energy sources have trade offs.
Solar panels take a lot of space and shadows ecosystems reliant on sun light. Wind turbines kill birds and are noisy. Dams remove water sources from ecosystems and communities reliant on them. Fusion/nuclear/fission pose security risks. Oil/coal power puts CO2 and pollutants into the air.
The last one has global consequences and the first 4 only have local consequences that depend on circumstances.
Edit: hey everyone, the point of this comment was not to shit on renewables or to paint them as equal to non renewables. I admit that the arguments I made are not the best. They didn’t come from thorough analysis, but it also wasn’t the point. The point is just that there is a case for fusion/fission too. One doesn’t have to exclude the other. Many renewables are time sensitive and depend on the environment. They are great and absolutely should we invest in it! I just don’t subscribe to the idea that we should shoot down fusion/fission.
Technology Connections made a video specifically for you. https://youtu.be/KtQ9nt2ZeGM
No they are not, no they do not.
Visit a wind farm. You will find far more dead birds at the base of a glass office building. Last summer I walked through a farm of 16 wind turbines and never saw a dead bird.
The amount of birds that actually get killed by wind turbines has always been dubious at best. And having been next to a wind turbine, they really aren’t that noisy.
In the early days of electricity, people complained they got headaches.
I’m not saying they are bad or not preferred. I’m just saying there are cases for fusion/fission sometimes.
yep. it’s called “deep space” and “half the way to the ord cloud”
Solar panels providing shade to grazing animals and crops is a mutual win, not the loss you make it out to be. Search for “the trampolining effect”
Thanks for sharing!
Fields with solar panels (10-40% shadowing) actually have up to 20% more yield here, since summers get too hot for 1 - 2 months. Swiss, not far south.
Also, place them on roofs!
That’s my point. The social benefit of renewables are environmentally and temporally differentiating. It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t invest in them! We definitely should, and likely more than we do. But all I’m saying if you were to calculate the environmental and societal long run costs, I believe there must be places and situations where fission/fusion is preferred sometimes.
Heavy industry. Metal casting, metal purification from ore, rockwool insulation, cement, glass works, all use huge energy.
Wait, what kind? Doesn’t the reaction just fizzle out and become safely dormant if anything wrong happens?
I’m thinking more in terms of warfare
how so?
The technology to use fusion as a bomb already exists. and has 0 to do with how the reactors work
For example when Russia invaded Ukraine and they attacked Chernobyl. Maybe it’s not founded in real risk. But I imagine it could be a security threat for someone to bomb a nuclear facility.
To alleviate your concerns - unlike fission, in a fusion reactor the only radiation comes from the active fusion process, and chamber lining that’s been bombarded by radiation. The worst case is a brief spike of neutron and gamma radiation from where the chamber breaches before the plasma collapses, a small amount of short-lived radioisotopes from the chamber debris, and a bit of tritium.
The radiation from the debris would be at background levels in a year or two, since there’s no transuranic decay chains (once decay event, and it’s stable again). The tritium would disperse to background levels in minutes, and the radiation burst would only be a hazard in the immediate vicinity.
Not free from issues at all, but compared to a fission reactor the worst-case scenario isn’t bad at all.
A fusion power plant will not explode in any meaningful way
Alright, the more you know