[thomasmg]

Battery: it doesn't have to be lithium (even thought, currently all planned ones use lithium-ion). Sodium-sulphur would be an option as well.

Biofuels are low energy density: this isn't about aviation or transportation, so that's not a concern at all.

Biofuels don't provide enough power: citation needed (are you moving the goalpost again?) - note that most energy will come from wind and the sun, so there is relatively little need for biofuels.

Burning biofuels releases carbon into the atmosphere that would otherwise be trapped: No, it would be released anyway (well, unless if you burry it really deep).

The problem with nuclear power is cost, due to high risks. And even then, the insurance (which is really expensive for nuclear plants) doesn't cover all the risks. The biggest risk is externalized: if e.g. a power plant in Switzerland would blow up, almost the whole country would be become un-inhabitable. And there is no insurance company paying for that.

[sir_bearington]

> Battery: it doesn't have to be lithium (even thought, currently all planned ones use lithium-ion). Sodium-sulphur would be an option as well.

Right: we assume some other form of energy that has yet to be commercialized will provide cheap storage. Get back to me when this solution actually demonstrates feasibility.

> Biofuels are low energy density: this isn't about aviation or transportation, so that's not a concern at all. Biofuels don't provide enough power: citation needed (are you moving the goalpost again?) - note that most energy will come from wind and the sun, so there is relatively little need for biofuels.

Biomass provides 1MWh per ton of dry wood [1]. On average, forests have 38 tons per acre [2]. The US consumes 11.5TWh of electricity daily, so this works out to 319,444 acres per day. The US has ~750 million acres of forest. So we have 2,343 days worth of biomass energy. Or about 6 years.

Sure, forests grow, but they take longer than 6 years to grow. Also the figure of energy was in raw BTUs, so the actual electricity generated is only about ~50% of that.

> Burning biofuels releases carbon into the atmosphere that would otherwise be trapped: No, it would be released anyway (well, unless if you burry it really deep).

It would be trapped in the form of trees and vegetation. If burning biofuels doesn't release carbon into the atmosphere why are people concerned about deforestation?

> The problem with nuclear power is cost, due to high risks. And even then, the insurance (which is really expensive for nuclear plants) doesn't cover all the risks. The biggest risk is externalized: if e.g. a power plant in Switzerland would blow up, almost the whole country would be become un-inhabitable. And there is no insurance company paying for that.

This is not even remotely true. The plants in Switzerland have secondary containment. Even Chernobyl, which had no secondary containment, created an exclusion zone of 40x40km. "Almost the whole country would become un-inhabitable" is laughable. It really just demonstrates that aversion to nuclear is not based on rational thinking.

1. https://www.nacdnet.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/AppendixA...

2. https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/fia/maps/nfr/descr/xlivebiohw.asp

[thomasmg]

> we assume some other form of energy that has yet to be commercialized

Both sodium-sulphur and lithium-ion are commercialized and widely used already (currently pumped storage is a lot more widely used, but it's not possible everywhere). [1]

Biofuels: as I wrote, it is only needed to fill the gaps [3], e.g. in winter, not to power 100%. It is already widely used, for example in Europe [2]. And it's not wood (CO2 is trapped in wood for some time, but not in vegetation). This doesn't displace forests.

> The plants in Switzerland have secondary containment.

So did Fukushima. There were many problems with nuclear plants in Switzerland, e.g. [4]. There is no 100% safety. In Switzerland, most people live in cities... sure, you could still live in the mountains, right.

> It really just demonstrates that aversion to nuclear is not based on rational thinking.

Actually, it is based on rational thinking. As the catastrophic events in Fukushima and Chernobyl, and the near catastrophes elsewhere have shown, nuclear power is dangerous. The population has to bear that risk. The companies would just get bankrupt. The insurance would only cover a small part of the costs.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_storage_power_station 2. https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/?country=UK&fuel=Ene... 3. https://www.iea.org/articles/how-biogas-can-support-intermit... 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BChleberg_Nuclear_Power_P...

[sir_bearington]

Biomass generates ~10% of the electricity from one country in Europe. Biomass is useful in countries like Brazil where extensive farmland means biodiesel is a viable automobile fuel. But for grid generation, the watts per acre is insufficient.

Globally, biomass is used for 0.7% of total energy demand [1]. Almost all of it for fuel, it doesn't even make it on the chart for electricity generation.

> So did Fukushima. There were many problems with nuclear plants in Switzerland, e.g. [4]. There is no 100% safety. In Switzerland, most people live in cities... sure, you could still live in the mountains, right.

And the secondary containment in Fukushima meant that most of the radiation was contained. Fukushima is already being resettled. You harbor this skewed perceptions where nuclear catastrophes render massive swathes of the earth uninhabitable, "almost the whole country [Switzerland] would be become un-inhabitable". No it would not. Even an uncontained meltdown resulted in a 40x40km exclusion zone. An a contained one is much less drastic. Three Mile Island didn't even result in any permanent exclusion zone.