-
But there aren't enough roofs to begin with in the Netherlands and probably large parts of Europe. So seeking alternative places for solar panels before all the roofs are used is a good strategy.My point is that overyone here seems to very seriously underestimate the cost involved with putting solar panels over a road.
This is why you put them on roofs and parking lots first before you consider roads.QuoteJust the aspect of poles near roads is dangerous, power pole impacts cause large numbers of deaths in crashes for example.
People in the Netherlands learn to drive properly. Lots of large trees next to roads as well so Darwin weeds out the bad drivers pretty quick. And there are also things like guide rails which can divert vehicles.Quote
That is a big urban myth. In Europe it doesn't work that way. One of the reasons is that government handouts aren't allowed by the EU. I've worked at a research institute and several smaller companies and I'm well aware of how government funding works (several projects I currently work on receive government funding). As I explained before the funding comes from tax cuts and discounts to have research done at a research institute but before you can take advantage of a tax cut or to get a discount you have to spend money.QuoteBut it is exactly the reason why companies with loads of money and smart engineers are trying to combine solar panels and roads.
No, the money comes from the government looking to virtue signal about the environment, and from the public who gets duped into slick crowd funding campaigns.
For example: if I buy a piece of equipment for $1000 I can get a $400 tax cut. But I'm still $600 in the hole. If I don't spend the $1000 then I don't get the $400 tax cut. There is no free money flowing towards me so I have to make sure the piece of equipment makes me at least $600 to break even.Quote
All in all it seems your entire solar roadway debunking is based on the idea that Colas and Solaroad got a bag with money for free to tinker with. And then you are calling me delusional? Epic!QuoteSo far not very succesful but technology needs time to develop. It took Werner von Braun years of experimenting and crap loads of money and effort to get a working rocket. That ended up with sending people into space about 20 years later.
The delusion you have is remarkable for someone on an engineering forum.
For the record: I never said solar roads are the ultimate solution but you have to respect the engineering process and see where it goes. A more balanced approach is much more informative than pulling funny faces and slapping your forehead. -
We have plenty of water, why not floating panels?
That is already under development and they are looking to put these between wind turbines located on sea. Ofcourse this has it's own set of engineering challenges and impact on the environment. -
All in all it seems your entire solar roadway debunking is based on the idea that Colas and Solaroad got a bag with money for free to tinker with. And then you are calling me delusional? Epic!
For the record: I never said solar roads are the ultimate solution but you have to respect the engineering process and see where it goes. A more balanced approach is much more informative than pulling funny faces and slapping your forehead.
So can you tell us how those projects were financed--who paid for what and how much?? Were they expressly an experiment or was there a stated expectation of performance? -
Quote
No, the money comes from the government looking to virtue signal about the environment, and from the public who gets duped into slick crowd funding campaigns.
That is a big urban myth. In Europe it doesn't work that way. One of the reasons is that government handouts aren't allowed by the EU. I've worked at a research institute and several smaller companies and I'm well aware of how government funding works (several projects I currently work on receive government funding). As I explained before the funding comes from tax cuts and discounts to have research done at a research institute but before you can take advantage of a tax cut or to get a discount you have to spend money.
For example: if I buy a piece of equipment for $1000 I can get a $400 tax cut. But I'm still $600 in the hole. If I don't spend the $1000 then I don't get the $400 tax cut. There is no free money flowing towards me so I have to make sure the piece of equipment makes me at least $600 to break even.
Yes, business invest first, then hope to get money back. Yet chances of getting money back depends on "variables" such as lobbying and corruption
From your example one is clear - you clearly are working in the wrong industry 
https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/policy/themes/low-carbon-economy/
Cohesion Policy 2014-2020 will go even further:
A minimum share of each region’s ERDF allocation will be invested in measures supporting the shift to a low-carbon economy:
• 20% in more developed regions;
• 15% in transition regions; and
• 12% in less-developed regions.
-
The projects I work(ed) on where financed by companies using own or venture capital. And no, there is never an expectation of performance. That is the whole point of doing research; to go of the beaten path and find something new. The government funding is to help limit the risks if the research going nowhere. But it isn't a bag of money; just a tax cut or discount at the end of the road. So in general projects are executed in small steps in order to keep the losses to a minimum if it doesn't work out. This also works the other way around: if a company invests a lot of money in a project they are likely on to something.
All in all it seems your entire solar roadway debunking is based on the idea that Colas and Solaroad got a bag with money for free to tinker with. And then you are calling me delusional? Epic!
For the record: I never said solar roads are the ultimate solution but you have to respect the engineering process and see where it goes. A more balanced approach is much more informative than pulling funny faces and slapping your forehead.
So can you tell us how those projects were financed--who paid for what and how much?? Were they expressly an experiment or was there a stated expectation of performance?
Only very fundamental research at universities and government related institutes get money directly but these projects undergo a lot of scrutiny including peer reviews before committing any money to them and the result is usually nothing more than a scientific report describing the experiments which where performed and their outcome. Fundemental research doesn't produce a product you can sell. -
The projects I work(ed) on where financed by companies using own or venture capital. And no, there is never an expectation of performance. That is the whole point of doing research; to go of the beaten path and find something new.
Well....45% of EU fund money is suspect of fraud:
http://publications.europa.eu/webpub/eca/special-reports/fraud-1-2019/en/
Knowing that "low carbon research" is up-to 80% EU-funded, some business can get idea to write off other than "low carbon footprint energy research" expenses. Disclaimer: it's educated speculation.
-
No, this page says that 45% of the fraud cases lead to prosecution. If you read further you'll see that the number of detected frauds is 0.29% of all payments with the majority in Cohesion and fisheries.The projects I work(ed) on where financed by companies using own or venture capital. And no, there is never an expectation of performance. That is the whole point of doing research; to go of the beaten path and find something new.
Well.... 45% of EU fund money is suspect of fraud:
http://publications.europa.eu/webpub/eca/special-reports/fraud-1-2019/en/
Knowing that "low carbon research" is up-to 80% EU-funded, some business can get idea to write off other than "low carbon footprint energy research" expenses. Disclaimer: it's educated speculation. -
The projects I work(ed) on where financed by companies using own or venture capital. And no, there is never an expectation of performance. That is the whole point of doing research; to go of the beaten path and find something new. The government funding is to help limit the risks if the research going nowhere. But it isn't a bag of money; just a tax cut or discount at the end of the road. So in general projects are executed in small steps in order to keep the losses to a minimum if it doesn't work out. This also works the other way around: if a company invests a lot of money in a project they are likely on to something.
All in all it seems your entire solar roadway debunking is based on the idea that Colas and Solaroad got a bag with money for free to tinker with. And then you are calling me delusional? Epic!
For the record: I never said solar roads are the ultimate solution but you have to respect the engineering process and see where it goes. A more balanced approach is much more informative than pulling funny faces and slapping your forehead.
So can you tell us how those projects were financed--who paid for what and how much?? Were they expressly an experiment or was there a stated expectation of performance?
Only very fundamental research at universities and government related institutes get money directly but these projects undergo a lot of scrutiny including peer reviews before committing any money to them and the result is usually nothing more than a scientific report describing the experiments which where performed and their outcome. Fundemental research doesn't produce a product you can sell.
I was specifically asking about the financing of the two solar roadway projects. Were you involved with those or just something similar? I looked and according to what I can find, the Solaroad project was paid for with a 1.5M Euro "grant" or purchase (not sure) by a municipality. Wattway is sold as a commercial product and has been used in other projects; as far as I can tell, the 5M Euro cost of the 1kM of Normandy roadway was paid for by the French government to Colas for the project. I had thought that these solar roadways were installed as a demonstration of a commercial product with specific expectations rather than an outright experiment. A kilometer of solar road is a bit more than what is necessary for a basic experiment to see if the product works and holds up.
Can't speak for the EU, but the way these sorts of things work in the US is the government may be involved twice--first providing a subsidized loan to companies with a "proven" product that want to go into production (spectacular failures include Solyndra and Fisker...) and then local or state governments or government entities purchase the product or the power. There have been some successes with these programs and they have wisely declined to put money into some bad ideas (i.e. Elio) and overall the program is doing OK, but it IS taxpayer money being used, even though the funds are not outright grants. -
No, this page says that 45% of the fraud cases lead to prosecution. If you read further you'll see that the number of detected frauds is 0.29% of all payments with the majority in Cohesion and fisheries.
Yes, you are right. Thank you for actually reading that paper. I was too careless with search results, yet do not step back from claim that some business can get idea to fraudulently write off their "other" expenses. -
I love that "Dave, this is new innovative technology, it needs to be investigated and tested". Unfortunately, no amount of innovation can change the laws of physics.
I wish all this money was being spent on making nuclear power safer and more time spent on thorium breeder reactors.
Maybe Dave can do a video debunking thorium breeder reactors, so we can get people interested in the technology that really will change the world.
Nuclear reactors can produce 17,000 GW/h per year and only take up 40m, so we could fit 25 reactors on a 1km road, and this could generate all of the power Australia generates currently each year.
Thorium reactors produce no carbon, very little waste (the waste product can actually be used to cure cancer), is less radioactive than burning coal and we have more thorium in the world than oil and coal.
Maybe we could investigate nuclear roads? -
I wish all this money was being spent on making nuclear power safer and more time spent on thorium breeder reactors.
Currently there is no thorium reactor, so we can't be 100% sure what are the side effects, and it is more dangerous than solar cells. Solar cells already work.
There are power plants like this, which produces 115 GWh per year (note: "GW/h per year" which you wrote is physically nonsense) and needs 1.6 km^2 space. Don't know from where you got the 17 TWh number, but total energy consumption in Australia was 4,000 TWh in 2013. Of course, this includes all fossil consumption for heating etc. So one solar power plant of 56,000 km^2 could provide all the energy Australia needs. This would be less than 1% of the area of Australia. Maybe double this to provide batteries for the night (or use some novel concepts like molten sand for energy storage) and you could power Australia with only one power plant which uses 2% of the area of Australia. There are lots of deserts in Australia, shouldn't be a problem.
Currently there is already 1/3 produced as renewable energy, with hydro the most with 17%, which makes sense, because for this you don't need batteries for the night. -
But there aren't enough roofs to begin with in the Netherlands and probably large parts of Europe. So seeking alternative places for solar panels before all the roofs are used is a good strategy.My point is that overyone here seems to very seriously underestimate the cost involved with putting solar panels over a road.
This is why you put them on roofs and parking lots first before you consider roads.
Rubbish. Don't make me get out google maps and prove you wrong.
One every roof and parking space is covered, then come back and we'll talk.Quote
That is a big urban myth. In Europe it doesn't work that way.QuoteBut it is exactly the reason why companies with loads of money and smart engineers are trying to combine solar panels and roads.
No, the money comes from the government looking to virtue signal about the environment, and from the public who gets duped into slick crowd funding campaigns.
[/quote]
Cola Wattwatt was government funded. 5 million euro.
Netherlands one was government funded.
Solar roadways in the US was private (Indiegogo) + government funded.
The Chinese one almost certainly government funded.QuoteQuote
All in all it seems your entire solar roadway debunking is based on the idea that Colas and Solaroad got a bag with money for free to tinker with. And then you are calling me delusional? Epic!QuoteSo far not very succesful but technology needs time to develop. It took Werner von Braun years of experimenting and crap loads of money and effort to get a working rocket. That ended up with sending people into space about 20 years later.
The delusion you have is remarkable for someone on an engineering forum.
https://reneweconomy.com.au/solar-roadway-construction-france-24892/QuoteThe project is funded by the French energy ministry, while in the summer Royal had also announced the mobilization of €5 million in state funding to support the development of the Wattway photovoltaic panel at the Société Nouvelle Areacem (SNA) factory, which is in the same area.
Stop making a fool of yourself.
Have you even watched my videos? They are about the practicality of the idea, not who funded it. -
Currently there is no thorium reactor, so we can't be 100% sure what are the side effects, and it is more dangerous than solar cells. Solar cells already work.
There were no solar roadways, it had never been tried, so we didn't know 100% what the side effects were. Thorium reactors are far less dangerous than solar roadways, more people have died on a road than they have been by nuclear reactors.There are power plants like this, which produces 115 GWh per year (note: "GW/h per year" which you wrote is physically nonsense) and needs 1.6 km^2 space. Don't know from where you got the 17 TWh number, but total energy consumption in Australia was 4,000 TWh in 2013. Of course, this includes all fossil consumption for heating etc. So one solar power plant of 56,000 km^2 could provide all the energy Australia needs.
The system only produced 110GWh from solar, and 2.5GWh of Fossil fuel.
"Fossil backup, night time preservation, and morning pre-heating, is provided by natural gas and provides up to 2% of total output.". So this plant produces more CO2 emissions than a nuclear reactor. See the article you linked to for reference.
Here are the government figures on energy generation in Australia.Currently there is already 1/3 produced as renewable energy, with hydro the most with 17%, which makes sense, because for this you don't need batteries for the night.
According to government figures. The actual percentages for 2018 are:
Wind: 5.74%
Hydro: 6.06%
Large-scale solar PV: 0.38%
Small-scale solar PV: 3.41%
Total Renewable: 16%. -
The 50% number is detemined by Deloitte (part of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu which is a big financial research and accounting firm). I'm not pulling numbers out of my ass. So please go ahead and prove a multi billion dollar firm wrong.
Rubbish. Don't make me get out google maps and prove you wrong.
But there aren't enough roofs to begin with in the Netherlands and probably large parts of Europe. So seeking alternative places for solar panels before all the roofs are used is a good strategy.My point is that overyone here seems to very seriously underestimate the cost involved with putting solar panels over a road.
This is why you put them on roofs and parking lots first before you consider roads.
One every roof and parking space is covered, then come back and we'll talk. -
There were no solar roadways, it had never been tried, so we didn't know 100% what the side effects were. Thorium reactors are far less dangerous than solar roadways, more people have died on a road than they have been by nuclear reactors.
Yes, I think we all agree that solar roadways are a bad idea
But comparing how many people have died on roads to emphasize the safety of nuclear reactors doesn't make sense. How many people have died because of Chernobyl? And how many people have died because of standard solar cell installations?The system only produced 110GWh from solar, and 2.5GWh of Fossil fuel.
"Fossil backup, night time preservation, and morning pre-heating, is provided by natural gas and provides up to 2% of total output.". So this plant produces more CO2 emissions than a nuclear reactor.
This is also right. But it does produce 98% solar cell generated energy. And it is possible to replace the natural gas consumption by batteries, but might cost more.Currently there is already 1/3 produced as renewable energy, with hydro the most with 17%, which makes sense, because for this you don't need batteries for the night.
According to government figures. The actual percentages for 2018 are:
Wind: 5.74%
Hydro: 6.06%
Large-scale solar PV: 0.38%
Small-scale solar PV: 3.41%
Total Renewable: 16%.
You are right, this table was misleading, the numbers in parentheses was the actual output, the numbers I quoted was the registered capacity.
But your number seems to be too low as well. When I look at the table O9 on page 11 in the report you linked, it says "total per cent renewable generation: 19%" for 2018. But this is only for electricity generation. If we want to replace heating, car fuel etc. all with renewable energy, it would be much less percentage, and a long way to go. But I think much better than any non-renewable power plant, like a nuclear reactor. -
I wonder, how difficult would it be where after putting panels on a building, they then work to cover areas like parking lots with them (just large enough to provide shade for cars parked in the spots, but to leave the aisle clear?
Why does the aisle need to be clear?For example, like this
-
The 50% number is detemined by Deloitte (part of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu which is a big financial research and accounting firm). I'm not pulling numbers out of my ass. So please go ahead and prove a multi billion dollar firm wrong.
Rubbish. Don't make me get out google maps and prove you wrong.
But there aren't enough roofs to begin with in the Netherlands and probably large parts of Europe. So seeking alternative places for solar panels before all the roofs are used is a good strategy.My point is that overyone here seems to very seriously underestimate the cost involved with putting solar panels over a road.
This is why you put them on roofs and parking lots first before you consider roads.
One every roof and parking space is covered, then come back and we'll talk.
What 50% number?
Provide evidence before I will waste my time.
But start with Amsterdam train station and work your way out
-
My opinion is that the leaking petroleum products (oil , gasoline, transmission , hydraulic fluids ) from cars and trucks over time would destroy the surface of the solar panel -
But there aren't enough roofs to begin with in the Netherlands and probably large parts of Europe. So seeking alternative places for solar panels before all the roofs are used is a good strategy.
Come on, not true. Most residential homes dont have a solar panel.
Most rental houses dont have a solar panel, and there isnt even an incentive to place one, cause the feed in rate is low, and landlords dont care about the cost of living.That is a big urban myth. In Europe it doesn't work that way. One of the reasons is that government handouts aren't allowed by the EU. I've worked at a research institute and several smaller companies and I'm well aware of how government funding works (several projects I currently work on receive government funding). As I explained before the funding comes from tax cuts and discounts to have research done at a research institute but before you can take advantage of a tax cut or to get a discount you have to spend money.
That's exacly how it works, seen it in real life. My previous in Belgium, 3/4 of my salary came from the goverment, i was doing "research"for renewable energy. It was a bunch of unpractical projects and it was driven by a lot of wannabe managers. A lot of money is wasted on this. These are typical, small scale projects that set a large target. I was working on one, where the target was to reduce the nation's energy usage by up to 3% (!!!). That's several power plants worth, so they dump millions of EUR in it.
So here are the ways the project could work: Let's schedule the usage of power, when the sun is shining.
Step 1: We only need to find the right appliances that can be controlled and started on wish.
Step 2: We need to define a communication protocol and devices that can control the appliances.
Step 3: We need to convince people to turn on the lights only when the sun is shining. Or to watch TV only during the day.
Renewable energy is great, but these projects are a waste of a good opportunity. The "We have to try everything" is a bad bad bad argument. We have to try things that make sense, and concentrate our efforts on those. P2G, molten salt storage, off shore, and so on.
That 3.5 MEUR that was spent on the stupid SolaRoad, could have been spent as:
- 3500 homes, receiving 100 EUR each year as incentive for installing a new solar panel. About 35MH capacity added to the grid. Generates 1MWh in 2.5 minutes when the sun is shining.
- Or, spend it on a cycle way, generated 1MWh energy over an entire year. -
Yes, I think we all agree that solar roadways are a bad idea
But comparing how many people have died on roads to emphasize the safety of nuclear reactors doesn't make sense. How many people have died because of Chernobyl?
From this Wiki article
"The steam-blast effects in the initial moments of the accident would ultimately cause two deaths of those in the facility, in the emergency responding that followed, 134 firemen and station workmen would be hospitalized with acute radiation syndrome due to absorbing high dose rates of ionizing radiation, of whom 28 died in the days to months afterward and approximately 14 suspected radiation-induced cancer deaths, would follow in the initial hospital admitted group of 134, within the next 10 years.[12][13] Among the wider population, an excess of 15 childhood thyroid cancer deaths were documented as of 2011.[14][15] Due to the often long Incubation periods for radiation exposure to induce cancer, the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) has, at multiple times, reviewed all the published research on the incident and found that at present, less than 100 documented deaths are likely to be attributable to increased exposure to radiation.".And how many people have died because of standard solar cell installations?
How many people have died from falling off roofs installing panels, or fires occurring as a result of falts in the solar panel installation?
From this article:
The fifty actual deaths from roof installation accidents for 1.5 million roof installations is equal to the actual deaths experienced so far from Chernobyl. If all 80 million residential roofs in the USA had solar power installed then one would expect 9 times the annual roofing deaths of 300 people or 2700 people (roofers to die). This would generate about 240 TWh of power each year. (30% of the power generated from nuclear power in the USA). 90 people per year over an optimistic life of 30 years for the panels not including maintenance or any electrical shock incidents.This is also right. But it does produce 98% solar cell generated energy. And it is possible to replace the natural gas consumption by batteries, but might cost more.
Lithium batteries are dangerous to the environment. Let's not mention Lead-acid batteries either.You are right, this table was misleading, the numbers in parentheses was the actual output, the numbers I quoted was the registered capacity.
But your number seems to be too low as well. When I look at the table O9 on page 11 in the report you linked, it says "total per cent renewable generation: 19%" for 2018. But this is only for electricity generation. If we want to replace heating, car fuel etc. all with renewable energy, it would be much less percentage, and a long way to go. But I think much better than any non-renewable power plant, like a nuclear reactor.
My numbers were based on table O1.
Don't get me wrong, I am all for solar energy, we just have to be real about it.
Arguing that nuclear power is more dangerous than solar is like arguing plane travel is more dangerous than driving by car. Just because we here about nuclear incidents or plane crashes, doesn't mean they are more dangerous than installing solar panels or driving a car. -
Yes, I think we all agree that solar roadways are a bad idea
But comparing how many people have died on roads to emphasize the safety of nuclear reactors doesn't make sense. How many people have died because of Chernobyl?
From this Wiki article
"The steam-blast effects in the initial moments of the accident would ultimately cause two deaths of those in the facility, in the emergency responding that followed, 134 firemen and station workmen would be hospitalized with acute radiation syndrome due to absorbing high dose rates of ionizing radiation, of whom 28 died in the days to months afterward and approximately 14 suspected radiation-induced cancer deaths, would follow in the initial hospital admitted group of 134, within the next 10 years.[12][13] Among the wider population, an excess of 15 childhood thyroid cancer deaths were documented as of 2011.[14][15] Due to the often long Incubation periods for radiation exposure to induce cancer, the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) has, at multiple times, reviewed all the published research on the incident and found that at present, less than 100 documented deaths are likely to be attributable to increased exposure to radiation.".And how many people have died because of standard solar cell installations?
How many people have died from falling off roofs installing panels, or fires occurring as a result of falts in the solar panel installation?
From this article:
The fifty actual deaths from roof installation accidents for 1.5 million roof installations is equal to the actual deaths experienced so far from Chernobyl. If all 80 million residential roofs in the USA had solar power installed then one would expect 9 times the annual roofing deaths of 300 people or 2700 people (roofers to die). This would generate about 240 TWh of power each year. (30% of the power generated from nuclear power in the USA). 90 people per year over an optimistic life of 30 years for the panels not including maintenance or any electrical shock incidents.This is also right. But it does produce 98% solar cell generated energy. And it is possible to replace the natural gas consumption by batteries, but might cost more.
Lithium batteries are dangerous to the environment. Let's not mention Lead-acid batteries either.You are right, this table was misleading, the numbers in parentheses was the actual output, the numbers I quoted was the registered capacity.
But your number seems to be too low as well. When I look at the table O9 on page 11 in the report you linked, it says "total per cent renewable generation: 19%" for 2018. But this is only for electricity generation. If we want to replace heating, car fuel etc. all with renewable energy, it would be much less percentage, and a long way to go. But I think much better than any non-renewable power plant, like a nuclear reactor.
My numbers were based on table O1.
Don't get me wrong, I am all for solar energy, we just have to be real about it.
Arguing that nuclear power is more dangerous than solar is like arguing plane travel is more dangerous than driving by car. Just because we here about nuclear incidents or plane crashes, doesn't mean they are more dangerous than installing solar panels or driving a car.
Whoa! I call BULLSHIT!
I think Chernobyl and Fukishima have proved that if nuclear power is to be safe, we have to do a better job at it. I know it can be done--look up "Calder Hall"--but these cases prove that it ISN'T being done safely in some cases. You've totally cherry-picked and misquoted a Wikipedia article. Here is the very next paragraph:
Sharing in common with attempts to estimate low level radon and air pollution exposure situations, determining the total eventual number of exposure related deaths is based on the linear no-threshold model, a contested statistical model.[17][18] Model predictions with the greatest confidence values of the eventual total death toll, in the decades ahead from Chernobyl releases vary, from 4,000 fatalities when solely assessing the three most contaminated former Soviet states, to about 9,000 to 16,000 fatalities when assessing the total continent of Europe.[19]
And there appears to be no consideration of India and other countries that may have been subject to I-131 contamination. Chernobyl was a massive disaster that caused the world to (correctly) reconsider the viability and safety of then-current nuclear power plant design.
So you've established that solar installations are about as hazardous as roof work in general--and I'm going to guess that most of those fatalities were a result of non-compliance with OSHA fall protection requirements. There are not likely to be large areas of the earth made uninhabitable for centuries by massive contamination by solar panels. Solar panels do not generate waste that is expensive and dangerous and needs to be stored for centuries. And you don't mention the workers killed in construction accidents at nuclear power plants.....you can go on forever with this.
-
Ironically the anti-nuke people are largely responsible for keeping Fukushima and Chernobyl era plants operating well beyond obsolescence by blocking the construction of newer much safer and more efficient plants. Many parts of Europe have been safely utilizing nuclear power for decades and we can do even better.
There are absolutely serious risks that must be dealt with but weigh them against the deaths and enormous environmental impact of burning fossil fuels. Nuclear accidents have terrible consequences but so do fossil fuels, it just tends to be spread out over time and locations.
And of course we should keep trying to develop fusion and renewable energy sources, as well as reducing consumption. No one technology is going to save the day or meet all of our needs. -
Many parts of Europe have been safely utilizing nuclear power for decades and we can do even better.
.... ....
Nuclear accidents have terrible consequences ...
I'd like to see nuclear power development of systems where meltdown is not a risk and high pressure containment structures aren't needed. -
Many parts of Europe have been safely utilizing nuclear power for decades and we can do even better.
.... ....
Nuclear accidents have terrible consequences ...
I'd like to see nuclear power development of systems where meltdown is not a risk and high pressure containment structures aren't needed.
Liquid salt reactors meet those requirements. The US even had one at one point but Nixon scrapped the concept because the follow on would not be in California and later the US gave up on all civilian fast fission reactors.
The various metal cooled reactors may meet those requirements.