[jaekwon]

Why don't we just build renewable energy that is abundant and doesn't require the unknown unknowns of nuclear energy? Geothermal, wind, solar?

I don't trust anybody with nuclear power. I don't know whether I should be eating fish from the pacific ocean. I have some idea how much cesium is in our ocean water because somebody is tracking it, but no idea what the ramifications of the Fukushima disaster is on me now and in the future, as somebody living in the west coast of the USA.

[Lazare]

Why? Because it doesn't work.

Nuclear is—even counting all the accidents—the safest and one of the greenest forms of energy we know of. Geothermal is hugely limited; wind is flaky, limited, and bad for the environment; solar is promising and getting economical, but it's still faced major practical and safety challenges.

> I have [...] no idea what the ramifications of the Fukushima disaster is on me now and in the future, as somebody living in the west coast of the USA.

None. Zero. Absolutely no impact or ramifications whatsoever. And that you'd even feel like that was in question is a crushing indictment of our sensationalist media.

[jaekwon]

> Geothermal is hugly limited

How? If you dig down you'll get heat. Wind power is bad for the environment? Solar has safety challenges? What?

> None. Zero. Absolutely no impact or ramifications whatsoever.

Clearly it has some impact, the question is how to measure it. Whatever the answer, zero isn't it.

[abelsson]

No, the correct answer is zero. The impact of Fukushima on someone living on the west cost of the US is negligible; as near to zero as makes no difference. There are many, many, many other things you don't worry about which has a much larger impact on your life: most dangerous of which is probably your diet and your commute to work.

[shangxiao]

The correct answer is not zero, it's negligible.

[ars]

> Why don't we just build renewable energy that is abundant and doesn't require the unknown unknowns of nuclear energy? Geothermal, wind, solar?

There isn't enough. Not even close. It's not as abundant as you think - the amount of our planets resources we would have to consume to make use of this "renewable" energy is enormous.

> but no idea what the ramifications of the Fukushima disaster is on me now and in the future, as somebody living in the west coast of the USA.

Well now you do. There are no ramifications whatsoever.

[throwaway5752]

Please explain why you think solar could not meet global energy needs.

[PeterisP]

Since current energy storage solutions are more resource intensive (and polluting) to make than energy generation, we need on-demand energy generation.

Solar (and wind) of x MW average power means at least 2x of max power, and thus needs at least 2x of 'reserve' non-solar power to cover the gaps when it's not being produced due to daytime or weather.

This means that solar, even if it'd be completely free and perfect, can't fill a majority of global energy needs - I'd guess that a third would be an absolute maximum unless/until we get radical breakthroughs in energy storage technology.

Those types of unpredictable energy don't replace other power plants, as those nonrenewable power plants are needed anyway - they only save fuel for those plants by allowing them to reduce load at random times.

[power_rated]

Solar and wind energy are perfectly predictable: www.energymeteo.com

There are fluktuations every day due to the differend demand and loads in any case. Thats why you link many sources together in a Virtual Power Plant. Works quite well. The biggest Virtual Power Plant in Germany is the one of Statkraft (a Norwegian Company); it has about 8GW capacity.

[throwaway5752]

That is a great point, and I do think that large scale transmission (closer to a global grid) and energy storage advancements are possible, but so far have suffered from a chick/egg problems. But even so I think there's a legit place for spot generation from whatever origin (probably methane powered turbines) in a balanced energy roadmap.

[power_rated]

There is also demand side management, where you power a system on and of based on the availablity of energy. Cooling Houses are an example of that.

[ars]

It probably could, if we spent enough resources on it. It's just not worth it, Nuclear is better for the environment.

Photovoltaics could not do it, no way. But solar thermal probably could. Storing power would require immense amounts of land for pumped water storage, but we could do it.

We'd also need huge amount of land for the solar collectors, but we could do it.

And huge amounts of copper for power lines and transformers. Again, possible.

But none of that is worth it, not when we have something as good as nuclear.

[throwaway5752]

That must be news about how photovoltaics could not meet global energy needs. Last I'd read up, global capacity with realistic assumptions was 3 times current energy use. Also, it's already cheaper per kWh than nuclear (fully depreciated). Also, nuclear is non-renewable. It's still flipping the bird to future generations.

Perhaps you are conflating capacity with transmission and storage?

[ars]

It costs too much energy to make a solar cell. Solar thermal at scale uses less energy for what it returns.

[throwaway5752]

See my reply to you here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8248640

Also, I don't understand your response. 1.) what is "too much" energy. 2.) what's your source on solar thermal vs PV EROEI at scale? 3.) what's the relevance of the solar thermal vs PV comparison, since every building in the US can have solar on the roof but not solar thermal. 4.) what's the relevance of your response to what I said?

[lutusp]

> It costs too much energy to make a solar cell.

Compared to what? Solar cells last a long time, and in sunny climates generate a lot of power, far more than enough to pay back the energy cost of their construction.

> Solar thermal at scale uses less energy for what it returns.

That may be true, but don't dismiss solar panels, in particular in remote locations where there's adequate sunlight.

[jaekwon]

You're wrong on both counts. We don't know the full effects of Fukushima yet (it's not over, and cancers caused may take much longer to show).

[cheeseprocedure]

"Sustainable Energy - without the hot air" [1] suggests renewables don't stand a chance at displacing conventional power generation without radical efficiency gains across the board and massive investment in infrastructure. They are not ready to drop in at massive scale.

As for Fukushima: I can't find a single source suggesting there is any danger short of eating fish caught right in front of the facility, which would indeed be a bad idea.

[1] http://www.withouthotair.com/c27/page_203.shtml

[vmp]

As far as I (with only an semi-educated opinion) can tell, renewable energy doesn't come with the steady output a nuclear plant provides. Either its not sunny enough (sudden cloud formations, bad weather) for solar panels or the wind calms so that wind turbines don't work. Another issue is location, in my country (Germany) we have wind parks in the northern regions but the providers are having difficulties directing the power to where it's needed [citation needed].

[jaekwon]

Geothermal is available all the time. I'd like to read about what kind of difficulties they're experiencing directing power. Maybe it's a political problem, not a physical one.

[fleitz]

Renewable is up there with nuclear for base load generation if one is not dumb about it, and it can be spooled up faster than nuclear because it doesn't depend on heat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_Dam

[fleitz]

Those technologies all have unknown unknowns.

If we generate power some people are going to get hurt no matter which technology you pick. If we don't generate power some people are going to get hurt because we don't have access to the power necessary extend their lives.

Nuclear, hydroelectricity and wind have pretty much the best deaths per MWH, solar happens to be worse than nuclear.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-ener...