305
'Limitless' energy: how floating solar panels near the equator could power future population hotspots
(theconversation.com)
this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2023
305 points (93.4% liked)
Technology
59345 readers
5583 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Just... Freaking... Deploy nuclear plants! We have the tech, we know they work, their footprint is small. Why the frack do we feel the need to chase these ridiculous zany ideas that face obvious fundamental engineering flaws, like, oh I don't know, STORMS and corrosion??? Maintaining these would be a bloody nightmare.
That's interesting you say that because building nuclear plants is also a "bloody nightmare", see Vogtle, Hinkley Point, Flamanville, etc
They have been dumb, that's for sure. However, a large part of the reason they were dumb is because of the regulatory process being, well .. stupid. Not engineered well for actually executing projects. Don't get me wrong, we absolutely need regulatory oversight, but it can be done in a more thoughtful way than it is currently.
These floating solar panels though, strike me as a general engineering nightmare.
That's not strictly true at least of Flamanville and by extension HPC. They were refining the design as they were building Flamanville and kept having to rework whole sections which put a delay on HPC. Now granted there was funding issues and government flip flopping involved but the regulatory process is pretty clear in the UK around these kinds of things.
It's not either/or. We need to roll out everything we can, including solar and nuclear, as well as carbon removal tech.
Nuclear power plants have a massive footprint. For example in Australia they're planning to setup a new nuclear waste disposal facility with a forecast budget of half a trillion US Dollars and it will be full in 70 years time - they'll have to build a new one somewhere else after that.
That nuclear waste site will be radioactive for millions of years. The land will never be able to be used for basically anything, ever.
If you covered just that nuclear waste facility with solar panels, it would provide a massive amount of power. Enough to cover the day time power needs of a small country.
Solar panels aren't a "zany" idea. In fact one of the reasons it's being explored is because it would reduce evaporation. Power generation is often almost an afterthought. The panels also don't have to be ugly - in fact there are prototypes that are invisible. They just look like ordinary glass, and don't cost much more than glass either.
Half a trillion dollars over seventy years is nothing. How large is the waste site compared to the habitable surface? A few square kilometers is nothing.
The power needs of a small country is also essentially nothing over a seventy year span.
Nuclear energy is not ideal but it beats the hell out of coal plants, and it gives us a bridge to something sustainable. Solar has its own drawbacks and no nation is going to maintain a bunch of floating panels out in the ocean.
If nuclear was in any way comparable in terms of cost to renewables + storage you might have a point, but it isn't, so you don't.
In fact, hot take: Why don't we deploy a solar power belt around the equator... AND nuclear power wherever we can put it? And while at it, let's make reprocessing of nuclear waste a must-do. It gives you more kWh/kg uranium, and the inevitable waste you do end up having is a cup instead of a cask, and far less dangerous for far shorter.
This happens to solve another problem though, which is that decreasing cloud coverage in the Pacific is leading to increasing surface water temperatures
The quickest way to de-carbonize our grid is nuclear. Meanwhile the US closed Three Mile Island a few years ago and onlined more natural gas in the state and Germany closed several nuclear plants and onlined more coal plants. The anti-nuclear push is fucking stupid.
At least France is building nuclear like crazy. They have one of the most de-carbonized grids on the planet.
Building new nuclear capacity takes a lot more time than building wind turbines and solar parks though.
Sure shutting the existing ones off is a bad idea but building new ones isn't the way
Also the building part consumes a lot of CO2, too, so it takes a bit longer than with renewables until your are break even.
I feel like a lot of those pushing for Nuclear don't see how France is relying on neighbouring countries in the summer because of the rivers not carrying enough water or not being cold enough for protest cooling and that factor will only get worse - especially with ACs being absolutely essential in summer in the next 50 years.
Sure keeping a good amount of nuclear for base level is good but especially if you're also doing renewables it's far too inflexible to be good if you have a sunny day with a lot of wind - so you need huge energy storage anyway if you want to completely remove gas and oil and at that point renewables are better in using those than nuclear
If they perfect this cement battery concept a combination nuclear/solar/wind strategy would be the ideal. Solar/wind as much as possible and nuclear to react to deficit with excess stored into block foundations for all three of the above.
You're either uneducated or a bad faith debater, or German.
https://www.reuters.com/world/unsealed-soviet-archives-reveal-cover-ups-chernobyl-plant-before-disaster-2021-04-26/
Chernobyl was a major disaster because it was Soviet crap that wasn't well regulated or maintained.
https://carnegieendowment.org/2012/03/06/why-fukushima-was-preventable-pub-47361
Same with Fukushima. Wasn't kept up to international standards for nuclear prevention. The tsunami wall was also considered inadequate at the time it was made.
Nuclear power is incredibly safe when done right, and incredibly powerful. The efficiency of nuclear power is unmatched. If the Jimmy Carter era policy of not reusing nuclear power (which is also safe but less efficient) you have effectively reduced nuclear waste that needs to be removed to an insubstantial amount. We even have an entire MOUNTAIN hollowed out to store nuclear waste.
Overall, when done right, nuclear power is safe and efficient, more efficient than any other renewable out there, and don't fret, I know nuclear power isn't technically renewable, just recyclable, but we have do much nuclear energy it's insane not to use it.
by what metric? because it certainly isnt cost/mw or how quick they are to deploy
Not being childish about it, but that line makes me lean towards you being German. I see no sources or anything from your end, which means it's probably speculative or just untrue.