Why solar is not the solution to the energy crisis

[Grayling813]

Why solar is not the solution to the energy crisis
https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/why- ... email=true

Next gen nuclear power is clean, efficient, and environmentally friendly. Most of the waste products can be recycled over and over and the remaining part is short lived. Why was it killed?

[Chemist45]

Almost all solar panels are made in China using high sulfur coal to fuel the power plants.
China also uses slave labor to make the solar panels.
These two facts are not debatable. They are proven.

So when you buy solar panels or encourage others to do so via legislation or tax incentives, you are subsidizing slavery.
There is no middle ground.

[philip964]

I read somewhere that by 2035, 25% of the solar panels will be in a landfill.

Solar panels are black, they directly heat the Earth vs normal desert soil or sand. So does this overcome the tiny amount the increased insulation value that in creasing in the last 100 years the increase in CO 2 from 0.038% of the atmosphere to 0.041% of the atmosphere.

BTW we are still coming out of an ice age.

Everyone forgets the big elephant in the room - the SUN.

[carlson1]

I have a man that is wanting to come give his “sales pitch” on solar panels and because if some grant it will not cost me any money. Oh how I believe that.

[OneGun]

What happens at night? No sun, no solar energy!

[Tex1961]

What happens at night? No sun, no solar energy!

Batteries, lots and lots of very expensive batteries.

[Chemist45]

Philip964 wrote

I read somewhere that by 2035, 25% of the solar panels will be in a landfill.

True.
Solar panels have a lifespan of about 20 years.
Recycling them is. . . . Let's just say not practical.
Oh, and the output decreases over time. You don't get anywhere near as much energy out of them after 10 years as you did when they were new.

But, at least its not as bad as wind turbine blades - a combination of fiberglass and epoxy that can only be landfilled.
In really, really, big landfills.

[Grayling813]

So, solar power is not a viable solution. What are your thoughts about the next gen fast nuclear reactors?
I haven’t read much about nuclear power technology since leaving the nuclear Navy, but always have believed that nuclear is the way to go long term for reliable electrical generation. This newer technology is interesting, removing many of the anti-nuc arguments.

The best alternative for energy generation is next generation nuclear power (fast-reactors). They combine safety, efficiency, and a small land footprint into an ideal power system.

These next generation reactors, such as the sodium-cooled integral fast reactor (IFR), are extremely safe because if the cooling goes bad, the reactor safely shuts down based on the laws of physics. These reactors also recycle their own waste on site so the nuclear material can be used over and over again (a method known as pyroprocessing). There is a very small amount of “waste” product but it can be safely stored and becomes “safe” after less than 100 years (and we know how to store things safely on those time frames vs. thousands of years required for traditional nuclear waste).

[Chemist45]

Grayling813 wrote:

These next generation reactors, such as the sodium-cooled integral fast reactor (IFR), are extremely safe because if the cooling goes bad, the reactor safely shuts down based on the laws of physics. These reactors also recycle their own waste on site so the nuclear material can be used over and over again (a method known as pyroprocessing). There is a very small amount of “waste” product but it can be safely stored and becomes “safe” after less than 100 years (and we know how to store things safely on those time frames vs. thousands of years required for traditional nuclear waste).

If the above is true, then I am a fan. TBH, I am also a fan of 1970s style nuclear power.
Let's add up all the people killed in the Three Mile Island and Fukashima disasters:
Hmmmm. Carry the zero.... Its...
Zero. None. Zip. Nada.

OK, lets look at the safety record of the US Nuclear Navy:
This can't be right: Perfect?
So to sum it up, US and Japanese nuclear power plants (Even those floating around in and on the ocean!) have resulted in zero deaths.
Pretty sure the European record is as good. The Russian's - not so much. But who is surprised by that?

There are a number of promising new technologies for generating power via nuclear reactions: Pebble reactors look promising as well.
As for Nuclear waste - that's a political problem, not a scientific one.
So lets stop the hand wringing, put on our big boy pants and get nuclear power rolling.