5 ms·

Complexity is the enemy of any reliable system. No energy source is simpler than solar arrays. They don't require any moving parts, thermal management, waste co

Complexity is the enemy of any reliable system. No energy source is simpler than solar arrays. They don't require any moving parts, thermal management, waste containment, or strong security. The only maintenance required is dusting. Why otherwise intelligent people cannot appreciate the cost of complexity for nuclear energy is beyond me, especially when viewed in contrast to something as simple as solar.

fromthestart 7y ago
There are costs other than complexity which must be considered before selecting a power source. For example, energy density per unit area. Nuclear has a much smaller footprint. Also the cost, maintnence, lifetime, and environmental impact of batteries required during night time/occluded operation is also not trivial, as is accommodating for unpredictable outputs due to weather.
- zie 7y ago
  Agreed, Also diversity of power is a win. But I agree, with the OP comment here, the simplicity of Solar is hard to get past, but sometimes it just won't work for a given application.
- v_lisivka 7y ago
  Nuclear is slow to operate, so it needs batteries to handle peaks during day. Nuclear can provide baseline power only. Solar panel can be installed at roofs, so it can double as shelter, and power loss due to transmission can be lowered. Backup gravitational battery can provide backup power on site for short (hours) periods of time, to cheaply offset energy from peak of production at noun to peak of consuming at evening. Efficiency of solar panels can be improved up to 80%, so they can reduce need for air cooling.
mcguire 7y ago
Except that solar doesn't provide power at night, and reduced power on some days. That means you need either storage or alternative power. Areas which can provide large amounts of solar tend to be located far from population centers. That means long range transmission systems, which are among the most complex systems in existence.
- Lutzb 7y ago
  Or you could just overprovision solar.

fromthestart 7y ago

There are costs other than complexity which must be considered before selecting a power source. For example, energy density per unit area. Nuclear has a much smaller footprint. Also the cost, maintnence, lifetime, and environmental impact of batteries required during night time/occluded operation is also not trivial, as is accommodating for unpredictable outputs due to weather.

zie 7y ago
Agreed, Also diversity of power is a win. But I agree, with the OP comment here, the simplicity of Solar is hard to get past, but sometimes it just won't work for a given application.
v_lisivka 7y ago
Nuclear is slow to operate, so it needs batteries to handle peaks during day. Nuclear can provide baseline power only. Solar panel can be installed at roofs, so it can double as shelter, and power loss due to transmission can be lowered. Backup gravitational battery can provide backup power on site for short (hours) periods of time, to cheaply offset energy from peak of production at noun to peak of consuming at evening. Efficiency of solar panels can be improved up to 80%, so they can reduce need for air cooling.

mcguire 7y ago

Except that solar doesn't provide power at night, and reduced power on some days. That means you need either storage or alternative power. Areas which can provide large amounts of solar tend to be located far from population centers. That means long range transmission systems, which are among the most complex systems in existence.

Lutzb 7y ago
Or you could just overprovision solar.