‘Limitless’ energy: how floating solar panels near the equator could power future population hotspots::New research shows densely populated countries in Southeast Asia and West Africa could harvest effectively unlimited energy from solar panels floating on calm tropical seas near the equator.

  • CherenkovBlue@iusearchlinux.fyi
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    72
    arrow-down
    23
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • mierdabird@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s interesting you say that because building nuclear plants is also a “bloody nightmare”, see Vogtle, Hinkley Point, Flamanville, etc

      • CherenkovBlue@iusearchlinux.fyi
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Oddbin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

    • cyd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s not either/or. We need to roll out everything we can, including solar and nuclear, as well as carbon removal tech.

    • abhibeckert@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

      • infamousta@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

    • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      This happens to solve another problem though, which is that decreasing cloud coverage in the Pacific is leading to increasing surface water temperatures

    • Iron Lynx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      21
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

      • hh93@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        27
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        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

        • Madison420@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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.

      • yeather
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Helluin@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          more efficient than any other renewable out there

          by what metric? because it certainly isnt cost/mw or how quick they are to deploy

          • yeather
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.