5 ms·

Nuclear power plants vs. solar+battery comparisons require one more dimension when compared: energy density. This will tell you how much weight and area is goin

Nuclear power plants vs. solar+battery comparisons require one more dimension when compared: energy density. This will tell you how much weight and area is going to be allocated to cover the energy need of the customers you would like to cover (eg. for example a country).

pfdietz 7y ago
Energy density is largely irrelevant. What matters is cost, and in most of the world the energy density of solar does not cause a large increment to the cost. Land is mostly cheap.
- jokoon 7y ago
  I often watch videos of Jean Marc Jancovici, a French consultant on energy. Cost is not really relevant to energy because the entire human civilization requires energy to function. Also, renewables can barely compete with nuclear, because they cannot deliver enough energy when you need it. Renewables also require more metals and mining, so they emit more. The coal and natural gas industry likes renewables because coal is on-demand energy.
  - pfdietz 7y ago
    Nonsense. Cost is always relevant, since there is always a variety of ways to solve a problem, and cost is used to choose between them. This is true even of things that are vital, like energy. Cost must be properly accounted for, of course, including externalities.
    - jokoon 7y ago
      If you can accurately calculate the vast implications of the price of energy, I might listen to you. There are things where the price doesn't say a lot of things. It's true for energy since it's a very long term investment, which also has implications on infrastructure. Generally it's pretty complicated to evaluate the public interest, and I don't think you can put a price tag on public interest. It doesn't change the fact that nuclear is always better. It's just that private funding doesn't like it because it's a very long term investment.
      - pfdietz 7y ago
        If we can't determine the implications, then what do you suggest we do? Make decisions by examining goat entrails? I understand why nuclear fans want to say cost doesn't matter. If cost matters, nuclear sucks. I understand how jarring this new reality (that nuclear has been priced out of the market vs. other CO2-free alternatives) is. Nuclear fans are still in denial about it, but declaring the falsehood "nuclear is always better" doesn't change that reality.
        jokoon 7y ago
        Again, renewables are not baseload, meaning it's not on-demand energy, meaning renewables will emit co2 because their require coal or gaz to supplement them. Storing electricity is also pretty damn difficult, and it adds more costs. I had this argument several times. Can you power electrical trains with renewables? No, because you can't decide when to have wind or sun. Concerning costs, this consultants made difference estimation and even when he favors renewables, they are still 2 times more expensive that nuclear. Even someone who worked with the Obama administration for renewables realized nuclear was better.
        pfdietz 7y ago
        Baseload isn't on demand energy either. It's "take it or leave it" energy. Baseload USED TO BE the cheaper per kWh, so grids were designed to have baseload + dispatchable sources to fill in the rest. But renewables have rendered this design obsolete. Now, the cheaper sources are not baseload, but intermittent. The optimal grid design is become one of using intermittent sources, then filling in around those with some combination of storage and dispatchable supplies. Expensive baseload has no place anymore in this situation. Your claim that renewables are 2x the cost of nuclear is an easily checked falsehood. The levelized cost of energy from renewables is 3-4x less than new nuclear plants.
        jokoon 7y ago
        Again, intermittent power source are not really useful because there are times when you need power and times when you don't, and nobody decides when there's sun or wind, not to mention seasons. Essentially, it means renewables = coal+gas. Not so good for low emissions.
  - skitout 7y ago
    Jean Marc Jancovici say that cost "should" not be relevant ; however currently this an important criterion of choice (if you double the price of energy tomorrow, you get riots) Renewable + heat/cold storage + electricity storage + demand-response + energy efficiency = that can deliver enough energy when you need it (and probably much cheaper than with nuclear)
    - jokoon 7y ago
      "probably"
mdorazio 7y ago
Energy density is only important in a few use cases since electric transmission is largely a solved problem and even in urban areas we currently have a lot of easily usable sun-facing surface area where panels can be installed.
- StreamBright 7y ago
  >> since electric transmission is largely a solved problem Really? I thought it requires a large investment that has a big impact on the environment which is an external cost to energy production and usually people do not care about it. Unless we are able to produce mass amounts of superconductive materials and deploy this solution to replace traditional infrastructure we have a wasteful way of transporting energy. http://insideenergy.org/2015/11/06/lost-in-transmission-how-much-electricity-disappears-between-a-power-plant-and-your-plug/ http://insideenergy.org/2015/11/06/lost-in-transmission-how-...

pfdietz 7y ago

Energy density is largely irrelevant. What matters is cost, and in most of the world the energy density of solar does not cause a large increment to the cost. Land is mostly cheap.

jokoon 7y ago
I often watch videos of Jean Marc Jancovici, a French consultant on energy. Cost is not really relevant to energy because the entire human civilization requires energy to function. Also, renewables can barely compete with nuclear, because they cannot deliver enough energy when you need it. Renewables also require more metals and mining, so they emit more. The coal and natural gas industry likes renewables because coal is on-demand energy.
- pfdietz 7y ago
  Nonsense. Cost is always relevant, since there is always a variety of ways to solve a problem, and cost is used to choose between them. This is true even of things that are vital, like energy. Cost must be properly accounted for, of course, including externalities.
  - jokoon 7y ago
    If you can accurately calculate the vast implications of the price of energy, I might listen to you. There are things where the price doesn't say a lot of things. It's true for energy since it's a very long term investment, which also has implications on infrastructure. Generally it's pretty complicated to evaluate the public interest, and I don't think you can put a price tag on public interest. It doesn't change the fact that nuclear is always better. It's just that private funding doesn't like it because it's a very long term investment.
    - pfdietz 7y ago
      If we can't determine the implications, then what do you suggest we do? Make decisions by examining goat entrails? I understand why nuclear fans want to say cost doesn't matter. If cost matters, nuclear sucks. I understand how jarring this new reality (that nuclear has been priced out of the market vs. other CO2-free alternatives) is. Nuclear fans are still in denial about it, but declaring the falsehood "nuclear is always better" doesn't change that reality.
      - jokoon 7y ago
        Again, renewables are not baseload, meaning it's not on-demand energy, meaning renewables will emit co2 because their require coal or gaz to supplement them. Storing electricity is also pretty damn difficult, and it adds more costs. I had this argument several times. Can you power electrical trains with renewables? No, because you can't decide when to have wind or sun. Concerning costs, this consultants made difference estimation and even when he favors renewables, they are still 2 times more expensive that nuclear. Even someone who worked with the Obama administration for renewables realized nuclear was better.
        pfdietz 7y ago
        Baseload isn't on demand energy either. It's "take it or leave it" energy. Baseload USED TO BE the cheaper per kWh, so grids were designed to have baseload + dispatchable sources to fill in the rest. But renewables have rendered this design obsolete. Now, the cheaper sources are not baseload, but intermittent. The optimal grid design is become one of using intermittent sources, then filling in around those with some combination of storage and dispatchable supplies. Expensive baseload has no place anymore in this situation. Your claim that renewables are 2x the cost of nuclear is an easily checked falsehood. The levelized cost of energy from renewables is 3-4x less than new nuclear plants.
        jokoon 7y ago
        Again, intermittent power source are not really useful because there are times when you need power and times when you don't, and nobody decides when there's sun or wind, not to mention seasons. Essentially, it means renewables = coal+gas. Not so good for low emissions.
- skitout 7y ago
  Jean Marc Jancovici say that cost "should" not be relevant ; however currently this an important criterion of choice (if you double the price of energy tomorrow, you get riots) Renewable + heat/cold storage + electricity storage + demand-response + energy efficiency = that can deliver enough energy when you need it (and probably much cheaper than with nuclear)
  - jokoon 7y ago
    "probably"

mdorazio 7y ago

Energy density is only important in a few use cases since electric transmission is largely a solved problem and even in urban areas we currently have a lot of easily usable sun-facing surface area where panels can be installed.

StreamBright 7y ago
>> since electric transmission is largely a solved problem Really? I thought it requires a large investment that has a big impact on the environment which is an external cost to energy production and usually people do not care about it. Unless we are able to produce mass amounts of superconductive materials and deploy this solution to replace traditional infrastructure we have a wasteful way of transporting energy. http://insideenergy.org/2015/11/06/lost-in-transmission-how-much-electricity-disappears-between-a-power-plant-and-your-plug/ http://insideenergy.org/2015/11/06/lost-in-transmission-how-...