3 ms·

> But the world didn't pay for it. The japanese government did. That is poetic justice, given that the Japanese government could have made sure the backup gene

> But the world didn't pay for it. The japanese government did. That is poetic justice, given that the Japanese government could have made sure the backup generators were stored securely. They were, as it turned out, fairly important. ;-) Don't forget that a couple of working diesel generators providing power to keep the cooling working would have entirely avoided the disaster. Some were actually flown there in time, but the connectors were wrong and time ran out. > This money could have been spent on 50GW of wind capacity instead. Sure, and when the wind doesn't blow, and the storage runs out, and it's a nighttime cold event - people freeze to death. That's aside from the economic effects on industry from unreliable energy sources. Wind costs generally aren't being calculated correctly, as reliable backup power is required for any wind that dips into the "minimum baseline" power supply, which is the essential power required for basic needs and industry. Nuclear is overall one of the safest ways of producing energy, and is the ONLY scalable, reliable power source that doesn't emit CO2. With mass-produced, modular, reactors, it can also be the cheapest power source overall. Cheaper than wind, solar or coal. The world desperately needs mass nuclear power from a couple of perspectives. If Global Warming is in fact a major threat, there is no choice in the matter. That is my touchstone as to whether or not the "Green" movement has gotten serious about it.

pfdietz 7y ago
> and is the ONLY scalable, reliable power source that doesn't emit CO2. This is an example of pro-nuclear ignorance. Renewables scale just fine, and are sufficiently reliable with a properly designed energy system. Their huge levelized cost advantage over nuclear means one can afford to mitigate their intermittency with overcapacity, transmission, storage (short and long term) and demand dispatch.
- Mirioron 7y ago
  >Renewables scale just fine An average 3 MW wind turbine will generate about 6 GWh of energy per year. It's estimated that wind farms can produce around 4 MW per square kilometer, so let's go with around 8 GWh per sqkm. In 2014 the UK used about 302 TWh of electricity (out of a total energy usage of 2249 TWh). To match the 302 TWh of electricity with these wind turbines you'd need wind farms covering 37,750 square kilometers. To cover the UK's total energy usage, you'd need an area greater than the surface area of the UK to be covered in wind farms. These are back of the envelope calculations, but they do point out the problem rather well.
  - pfdietz 7y ago
    Solar is beating wind in new capacity auctions in Germany now, and I expect it will also do so in the UK soon enough. You'll still want some wind for diversity of sources, but solar has higher power/area. Europe in general will have trouble in a solar-powered future, though. Energy intensive industry will migrate to the cheap energy closer to the equator.
    - Mirioron 7y ago
      Sure, but the amount of power you need to generate per area needs to be multiple orders of magnitude better than wind for this to be a viable option. At least you can build wind farms in the sea.
      - adrianN 7y ago
        Solar panels have about 150W per square meter.
        Mirioron 7y ago
        Can you provide a source on that? I find it (slightly) difficult to believe, because you want your solar panels to track the sun. This means that a 1 sqm solar panel needs much more space to operate depending on how far north you are. I'm not saying it's not possible, but I'd love to read more about it!
        adrianN 7y ago
        Normal commercial solar panels have around 175 Watts/sqm peak output. You're right that you rarely get that peak output, but it's still a lot better than the numbers you gave for wind turbines. They also have the benefit that you can put them on roofs, i.e. space that isn't used for anything else.
        _Tev 7y ago
        But that's the problem with renewables - no one talks about utilization / MWh produced per year. Instead you quote "peak output" and hope nobody notices it's not a valid argument. I heard about 0.12* being utilization factor for Czechia (right next to Germany), but you can't really google this as everyone spams about installed capacity, peak output and other useless figures. * that would mean 17.5MW/sq km. So yes, better than GP figure. No, still not usable (improvement of only factor 4.5). EDIT: Quick calculation based on numbers here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Germany#/media/File%3ASolar-energy-factsheet-germany.jpg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Germany#/medi... gives me solar utilization factor of 9.5 for Germany in 2016.

pfdietz 7y ago

> and is the ONLY scalable, reliable power source that doesn't emit CO2. This is an example of pro-nuclear ignorance. Renewables scale just fine, and are sufficiently reliable with a properly designed energy system. Their huge levelized cost advantage over nuclear means one can afford to mitigate their intermittency with overcapacity, transmission, storage (short and long term) and demand dispatch.

Mirioron 7y ago
>Renewables scale just fine An average 3 MW wind turbine will generate about 6 GWh of energy per year. It's estimated that wind farms can produce around 4 MW per square kilometer, so let's go with around 8 GWh per sqkm. In 2014 the UK used about 302 TWh of electricity (out of a total energy usage of 2249 TWh). To match the 302 TWh of electricity with these wind turbines you'd need wind farms covering 37,750 square kilometers. To cover the UK's total energy usage, you'd need an area greater than the surface area of the UK to be covered in wind farms. These are back of the envelope calculations, but they do point out the problem rather well.
- pfdietz 7y ago
  Solar is beating wind in new capacity auctions in Germany now, and I expect it will also do so in the UK soon enough. You'll still want some wind for diversity of sources, but solar has higher power/area. Europe in general will have trouble in a solar-powered future, though. Energy intensive industry will migrate to the cheap energy closer to the equator.
  - Mirioron 7y ago
    Sure, but the amount of power you need to generate per area needs to be multiple orders of magnitude better than wind for this to be a viable option. At least you can build wind farms in the sea.
    - adrianN 7y ago
      Solar panels have about 150W per square meter.
      - Mirioron 7y ago
        Can you provide a source on that? I find it (slightly) difficult to believe, because you want your solar panels to track the sun. This means that a 1 sqm solar panel needs much more space to operate depending on how far north you are. I'm not saying it's not possible, but I'd love to read more about it!
        adrianN 7y ago
        Normal commercial solar panels have around 175 Watts/sqm peak output. You're right that you rarely get that peak output, but it's still a lot better than the numbers you gave for wind turbines. They also have the benefit that you can put them on roofs, i.e. space that isn't used for anything else.
        _Tev 7y ago
        But that's the problem with renewables - no one talks about utilization / MWh produced per year. Instead you quote "peak output" and hope nobody notices it's not a valid argument. I heard about 0.12* being utilization factor for Czechia (right next to Germany), but you can't really google this as everyone spams about installed capacity, peak output and other useless figures. * that would mean 17.5MW/sq km. So yes, better than GP figure. No, still not usable (improvement of only factor 4.5). EDIT: Quick calculation based on numbers here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Germany#/media/File%3ASolar-energy-factsheet-germany.jpg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Germany#/medi... gives me solar utilization factor of 9.5 for Germany in 2016.