4 ms·

Understood, but citing costs without also including the resulting benefit or without comparing to other options (like solar), doesn't really answer any question

Understood, but citing costs without also including the resulting benefit or without comparing to other options (like solar), doesn't really answer any questions. I wouldn't be concerned if the cost is 2x if the output is 10x. I worked for a solar manufacturer for almost 10 years. I had my blood tested regularly to monitor Cadmium. What is going to be the cost of dealing with all the Cadmium in the 50,000 two foot by four foot modules that we made daily? That's right, daily. Not annually. And we were one manufacturer. What about the acreage that is consumed and the resulting environmental damage that comes from trying to capture the extremely diffused energy source and then convert a small fraction of it in to energy only to lose a third of it in transmission by the time it gets to power plant? And cost of development - hasn't taken about 50 years to achieve only about 15% efficiency (assuming economically practical technology). My point is it doesn't seem like solar is quite as cheap, simple, clean, and safe as it's made out to be while at the same time it seems to get harder and harder to squeeze out more efficiency. It seems to me that nuclear has almost the opposite dynamic.

manicdee 7y ago
The cost of nuclear is two or three times higher than coal for the same output, with capital costs amortised over the 50 year life of the plant. The cadmium you worked with was either a result of handling dopants in a wafer manufacturing plant, or dust from finishing cells in a panel assembly plant. There is insignificant exposure between assembly and disposal, and even then disposal can include reclamation of materials so that we don’t have panels filling garbage dumps for the rest of eternity. Do you worry this much about the chemicals used to manufacture your plates or cutlery? As for transmission losses, the same applies for every energy source that isn’t collocates with point of consumption. Solar is as comparatively clean cheap and simple as it has been claimed to be because the options are so incredibly dirty and destructive.

manicdee 7y ago

The cost of nuclear is two or three times higher than coal for the same output, with capital costs amortised over the 50 year life of the plant. The cadmium you worked with was either a result of handling dopants in a wafer manufacturing plant, or dust from finishing cells in a panel assembly plant. There is insignificant exposure between assembly and disposal, and even then disposal can include reclamation of materials so that we don’t have panels filling garbage dumps for the rest of eternity. Do you worry this much about the chemicals used to manufacture your plates or cutlery? As for transmission losses, the same applies for every energy source that isn’t collocates with point of consumption. Solar is as comparatively clean cheap and simple as it has been claimed to be because the options are so incredibly dirty and destructive.