3 ms·

> Pretty much everyone who looks at it agrees that nuclear costs more than solar, wind and batteries and is a non-solution to climate change due to cost alone.

> Pretty much everyone who looks at it agrees that nuclear costs more than solar, wind and batteries and is a non-solution to climate change due to cost alone. Could you point to some studies on this? I am open to persuasion but as far as I'm aware, the battery technology is not there yet, and lots of countries would struggle to find enough land to get all their power from solar + wind.

zzzcpan 7y ago
Most countries also live in a single time zone and have winters too, so having enough generation capacity in the winter alone would already skyrocket the cost by an order of magnitude. Add to that energy storage and realistically we are not looking at solar and wind as significant power sources in the next couple of decades for sure.
- pjc50 7y ago
  > solar and wind as significant power sources in the next couple of decades https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/766776/Press_Notice_December_2018.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... Hard to declare 33% as "not significant". Yes, that chart also shows a significant contribution from nuclear, but it really does take much longer to build.
olau 7y ago
I would change "batteries" to some kind of storage, because while current chemical batteries are beginning to look like it could possibly evolve into something useful for longer term storage, it's not there yet as you say. Here's the first study I found: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148118301526?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096014811... Regarding land: Lots of small countries don't have the resources either in the current situation and import oil, gas and coal.
- jordanbeiber 7y ago
  Morocco is doing interesting things: https://edition-m.cnn.com/2019/02/06/motorsport/morocco-solar-farm-formula-e-spt-intl/index.html https://edition-m.cnn.com/2019/02/06/motorsport/morocco-sola... Store heat in salt for use at night time. They are really ambitious it seems. Obviously no longterm storage, but interesting non the less I think.

zzzcpan 7y ago

Most countries also live in a single time zone and have winters too, so having enough generation capacity in the winter alone would already skyrocket the cost by an order of magnitude. Add to that energy storage and realistically we are not looking at solar and wind as significant power sources in the next couple of decades for sure.

pjc50 7y ago
> solar and wind as significant power sources in the next couple of decades https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/766776/Press_Notice_December_2018.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... Hard to declare 33% as "not significant". Yes, that chart also shows a significant contribution from nuclear, but it really does take much longer to build.

olau 7y ago

I would change "batteries" to some kind of storage, because while current chemical batteries are beginning to look like it could possibly evolve into something useful for longer term storage, it's not there yet as you say. Here's the first study I found: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148118301526?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096014811... Regarding land: Lots of small countries don't have the resources either in the current situation and import oil, gas and coal.

jordanbeiber 7y ago
Morocco is doing interesting things: https://edition-m.cnn.com/2019/02/06/motorsport/morocco-solar-farm-formula-e-spt-intl/index.html https://edition-m.cnn.com/2019/02/06/motorsport/morocco-sola... Store heat in salt for use at night time. They are really ambitious it seems. Obviously no longterm storage, but interesting non the less I think.