[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?

[ars]

> what is "too much" energy.

More energy than it costs to make them, or at least enough energy that it's better to build something else.

> what's your source on solar thermal vs PV EROEI at scale?

Solar thermal just needs a mirror (ideally aluminium rather than glass and silver) and the rest of the plant is the same as a regular power plant. A mirror costs less than fuel I'm sure.

Solar cells need ultra pure silicon which is very very expensive to make.

> what's the relevance of the solar thermal vs PV comparison, since every building in the US can have solar on the roof

What would be the point if the energy return is not there?

> 4.) what's the relevance of your response to what I said?

I said they could meet global energy needs, just that it's not worth it. You assumed for some odd reason that I said they could not, so I figured you were asking about a comparison.

[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