What limits the amount of renewable energy sources?

[cosmik debris]

What is most important about "renewable" sources isn't that they are renewable, it's that they are clean. Nuclear should be included in that. Indeed, many laws that subsidize "renewable" energy specifically cite it for being carbon free, even while excluding nuclear. These categorizations are being challenged in court and nuclear is tending to win those arguments.

Also, less important, but nuclear power doesn't need to be "renewable" because it will take a very long time to deplete it.

How does one counter the argument about nuclear waste? Nuclear seems clean in other respects but the waste is the waste a problem?

Cheers

 

[russ_watters]

How does one counter the argument about nuclear waste? Nuclear seems clean in other respects but the waste is the waste a problem?

When have you ever heard of an *actual* and *current* problem with nuclear waste? Not a theoretical problem, an *actual* problem. Not in the future, now. Every course of action people describe is for an actual problem: we "must" do this or that. 'We must keep nuclear waste safe for 100,000 years.' But every description of why starts with a hypothetical. Might, if, maybe, could. And silly ones at that: *If* civilization collapses, whoever's left alive *might* not recognize warning signs and become exposed to the waste.

Global warming is an *actual* problem and a *now* problem. There's CO2 in the atmosphere, the levels are rising and the climate is warming. These are facts; they are things that are actually happening now.

Actual, now problems are more important than hypothetical future ones, even if their scale is the same, which it isn't.

 

[essenmein]

How does one counter the argument about nuclear waste? Nuclear seems clean in other respects but the waste is the waste a problem?

Cheers

I think the big reason here is that people are stuck in the 60's when it comes to nuclear tech. Both Fukishima and Chernobyl are/were the same reactor generation/technology (BWR). Things have come quite a long way since those once through reactors. I blame the Simpsons.

As a primer on where we could go check out the Hitachi PRISM, or MSRs in general, also hybrid fission/fusion is very interesting (Fusor as a neutron source, nuke waste as a target/fuel). Then if cost is the next question then the answer is the SMR concepts.

Its a shame nuclear is basically the N word of the energy sector because we could already be carbon free.

 

[essenmein]

Plus "renewable" is a nonsense concept, its not renewable, the sun will run out, its just the time frame is acceptable lol.

Edit: I see someone already made this comment :D

 

[essenmein]

Then if someone raises the "natural" argument against nuclear power, well, mother nature beat us to it by a few billion years!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor

 

[anorlunda]

We are getting far afield of the OP question.

I was told every country needs a constant electricity production source (like coal or nuclear powerplants), and up to some proportion, renewable sources (photovoltaics, hydro, wind turbines, etc).

So, my question is: what limits the amount of renewable sources? (the grid, storage...?)

Since that question was adequately answered, it is time to close this thread.