You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Energy in Blockchain and Technology
I agree with almost everything you wrote, but a little phrase in the introduction confuses me... How is meat consumption a bad this g thrown at millennial's back?
Also, nuclear energy is way too dangerous and risky to become our main source of energy... I bet for solar energy, just the little surface of the Earth (compared with the huge perimeter of the sun) receives more from the sun energy on a daily basis than the amount the while planet needs for a year of human a activity
Yeah that part was a little confusing, I've changed it, shoved isn't the expression I should have used... What I was trying to say is that there are many issues nowadays that my generation needs to fix, meat consumption is one of them, it's been increasing more and more and, from what the experts say, it increases global warming by quite a lot.
There are more than 300 nuclear plants world-wide, China is increasing the number of nuclear power plants and so is the US, the dangerous part is lack of maintenance in the power plants, fukoshima happened largely due to bad construction and lack of maintenance. I don't consider them that dangerous if they are properly used. I wouldn't rely on nuclear only ofc, but I do think we need a central energy production facility so we get a steady reliable energy production. Also, Uranium will soon be used in nuclear reactors for space exploration, which make it a great buy for that too...
There are 2 issues with solar power atm:
The first one is storing the energy, solar power isn't a stable source of energy so that energy needs to be stored, to store it countries have been using hydroplants, but it's kind of hard and not many countries have the hydroplants needed to do that, my country actually does and if connected with Europe it would store a lot of the energy but it seems France doesn't want to put high end electric cables to connect Spain and Portugal with the rest of Europe (at least this is what I've heard but don't quote me on this).
The second issue with solar power is that limit I mentioned, it's a limit that needs to be surpassed if we want to actually rely on solar power, there have been a few studies done with new materials that show that that limit is very near to be surpassed, but so far no Proof of concept has come forward, which can mean that it is still far away. What that limit does is that only 30% of the solar energy is actually captured by the solar panels, this decreases the potential for solar power quite a lot...
I think nuclear power gets a really bad rep when it's actually not that wasteful and not that polluting if used correctly. But hey, I'm not an energy engineer, I would have to do lots of research, read lots of studies and talk with some big guys in the nuclear vs renewable energy field to actually develop a good strong opinion that I could defend.
I study chemistry, I told you for sure... Nuclear is a harmful process towards the environment, nuclear reactors byproducts are extremely difficult to get rid off and they're currently just being dumped on the ocean...
I can see that you're thinking in solar panels placed on Earth surface, that's why you say it's somehow inestable source of energy. But actually it's quite the opposite, there's no more stable and reliable source of energy that solar radiation. What you think about it being a raw technology with no solid concepts yet available for practical us very true tho, but the speed of development is proportional to the budget of the research, and solar energy don't get what it needs to be a reasonable alternative for our society.
Construction of said solar panels are not exactly environmentally friendly endeavor either.
Nuclear byproducts, if handled correctly, requires much less space than the massive landfills for everyday trash.
Not saying solar can't get there one day, but nuclear is currently the more viable option for mass usage.
And then the hurdle with energy storage. Let's be real, battery technology has not nearly advanced as fast in the last century.
As for maintenance, I'm not sure which requires more time and money...one plant versus its equivalence in panels, etc.
The issue is that there's not which s thing as a 'proper' nuclear waste method, waste disposal is a fancy term for a process in which we dilute the hazardous substance into the environment to such a low concentration that it ends up being harmlessly to a living organism. The issue with nuclear waste products is that they just keep being radioactive for too much time... And the rate at which they are generated prohibits a proper disposal since they just will end up accumulating reaction in our planet soil, waters, and atmosphere.
I know that solar power is not the cheap or convenient option, but is the only one that is both long-term sustainable and environment-friendly. Of course, I'm not against the development of nuclear technology as a source of energy. For instance, when there are major power shortages because of natural tragedies or some other kind of massive problem, you could use nuclear reactors as a quick response measure. What I'm against is with the constant and generalized use of it, since a environmental low-cost operational mechanism is theoretically impossible.
Don't get me wrong, it's not like I'm a green planet extremist or anything, is just that only when you have a direct contact with the damage it can cause you can realize it's not such a good option.
It's great to exchange opinions with you, best regards.