4 ms·

Isn't EROI the more important perspective? I mean, sure takes a lot of material (i.e. energy input) to make, but it _makes_ a lot of energy in return. And that

Isn't EROI the more important perspective? I mean, sure takes a lot of material (i.e. energy input) to make, but it _makes_ a lot of energy in return. And that energy isn't creating CO2 in the process. Your own data says that the EROI is quite a bit better than solar. Why does the material input matter in absolute? Looks like your page is pretty pro-nuclear. Comparing the total cost of solar power with the cost of ONLY the uranium in a nuclear reactor... that's very misleading.

beefman 9y ago
> Isn't EROI the more important perspective? Yes. > Comparing the total cost of solar power with the cost of ONLY the uranium in a nuclear reactor... that's very misleading. The fission materials intensity number includes the mass of an entire plant and all the fuel that will ever go in it. The assumed technology is also 40 years old and very far from optimal for fission.
- torpfactory 9y ago
  If you agree that EROI is more important, why bring up the comment about material use? You're arguing against wind with a statistic that you just admitted isn't important. And as for Fission material intensity, obviously it looks great: Fission releases an enormous amount of energy from a small amount of matter. But cost-wise, fission plants are expensive. Your cost data are misleading ones, not material data: You compare lifetime cost of solar and a few other options with the cost of ONLY the uranium. Fission plants themselves are hugely expensive, even before you put the Uranium in them.
  - beefman 9y ago
    I didn't say materials intensity is unimportant. It's usually required to estimate EROI. The fuel figures shouldn't be misleading because they're clearly labeled. The balance of plant for solar is not included with the panel cost. As with the nuclear plant, there is no commodity pricing to include.

4 ms·

Isn't EROI the more important perspective? I mean, sure takes a lot of material (i.e. energy input) to make, but it _makes_ a lot of energy in return. And that

by torpfactory 9y ago

beefman 9y ago
> Isn't EROI the more important perspective? Yes. > Comparing the total cost of solar power with the cost of ONLY the uranium in a nuclear reactor... that's very misleading. The fission materials intensity number includes the mass of an entire plant and all the fuel that will ever go in it. The assumed technology is also 40 years old and very far from optimal for fission.
- torpfactory 9y ago
  If you agree that EROI is more important, why bring up the comment about material use? You're arguing against wind with a statistic that you just admitted isn't important. And as for Fission material intensity, obviously it looks great: Fission releases an enormous amount of energy from a small amount of matter. But cost-wise, fission plants are expensive. Your cost data are misleading ones, not material data: You compare lifetime cost of solar and a few other options with the cost of ONLY the uranium. Fission plants themselves are hugely expensive, even before you put the Uranium in them.
  - beefman 9y ago
    I didn't say materials intensity is unimportant. It's usually required to estimate EROI. The fuel figures shouldn't be misleading because they're clearly labeled. The balance of plant for solar is not included with the panel cost. As with the nuclear plant, there is no commodity pricing to include.