5 ms·

This article implies radiation is the only objection to nuclear power, which isn’t true. It also fails to mention any alternatives (renewables) at all. Both see

This article implies radiation is the only objection to nuclear power, which isn’t true. It also fails to mention any alternatives (renewables) at all. Both seem major omissions.. especially from the BBC, which I always found was a bit more balanced on these topics.

tonyarkles 6y ago
So far the largest solar plant in the world is about 1500MW in China. That’s still only a fraction of the largest nuclear facilities in the world. And solar plants only work during the day, to a first approximation (yes, there are storage approaches that sort of work, in some parts of the world.) Overall, most renewables don’t really come all that close to nuclear as far as generation capacity goes...
- pfdietz 6y ago
  > So far the largest solar plant in the world is about 1500MW in China. That’s still only a fraction of the largest nuclear facilities in the world. Why is this a problem? If solar plants can be cheap without being big, that's a feature, not a bug.
  - imtringued 6y ago
    In fact this is one of the biggest reasons why nuclear is failing. Building even just a single power plant is a project that is so large no single company can do it.
    - vbezhenar 6y ago
      Rosatom built many power plants.
      - lightgreen 6y ago
        It is government owned.
  - arrosenberg 6y ago
    A 1.5GW solar plant is going to cover a massive amount of land. For comparison sake, the decommissioned San Onofre Nuclear Plant had roughly 2.7 GW of generation capacity, and the official website estimates it would take roughly 18 square miles of solar panels to replace that capacity. https://www.songscommunity.com/about/virtual-tour https://www.songscommunity.com/about/virtual-tour
    - pfdietz 6y ago
      There is plenty of land. The notion that land constraints seriously limit solar is an oft-repeated canard. You can see this by either comparing the land needed to the land available, or by comparing the cost of land to the cost of the equipment that is put on the land. Nuclear's land use typically ignores the land used by the distribution network for its power. If you add that in, the land ratio of solar vs. nuclear is much smaller.
      - arrosenberg 6y ago
        > There is plenty of land. The notion that land constraints seriously limit solar is an oft-repeated canard. I mean, I guess that's technically true, but not all land is made the same - solar is obviously going to be more productive in California, Arizona and Florida than it will be in Washington or Maine. I'm also not arguing that we can't do it because of land — it's poor land use, and works counter to the goal of sequestering carbon out of the atmosphere. How many ecosystems should be destroy by covering it in panels, when we could install a couple dozen mass manufactured nuclear plants and call it a day? > Nuclear's land use typically ignores the land used by the distribution network for its power. How do you figure? You are going to have transmission from the desert to cities, and you will need last mile delivery either way. When you do the math on the number of 18 square mile solar plants you would need for the equivalent number of small-footprint nuclear plants, it's really hard for me to see how this is true.
        pfdietz 6y ago
        Yes, not all land is the same. I think people who worry about land are thinking about the land they see every day, which is in populated areas. They don't think about the vast quantities of very cheap land outside those urban areas. > How many ecosystems should be destroy by covering it in panels, Many fewer than were destroyed covering far vaster areas with farms. > How do you figure? You are going to have transmission from the desert to cities, and you will need last mile delivery either way. That doesn't contradict the point I made.
- glogla 6y ago
  The other thing is that 1500 MW solar with capacity factor of 11 % (that's number for Germany) is going to deliver significantly less energy than 1500 MW nuclear plant with capacity factor 98 %.

tonyarkles 6y ago

So far the largest solar plant in the world is about 1500MW in China. That’s still only a fraction of the largest nuclear facilities in the world. And solar plants only work during the day, to a first approximation (yes, there are storage approaches that sort of work, in some parts of the world.) Overall, most renewables don’t really come all that close to nuclear as far as generation capacity goes...

pfdietz 6y ago
> So far the largest solar plant in the world is about 1500MW in China. That’s still only a fraction of the largest nuclear facilities in the world. Why is this a problem? If solar plants can be cheap without being big, that's a feature, not a bug.
- imtringued 6y ago
  In fact this is one of the biggest reasons why nuclear is failing. Building even just a single power plant is a project that is so large no single company can do it.
  - vbezhenar 6y ago
    Rosatom built many power plants.
    - lightgreen 6y ago
      It is government owned.
- arrosenberg 6y ago
  A 1.5GW solar plant is going to cover a massive amount of land. For comparison sake, the decommissioned San Onofre Nuclear Plant had roughly 2.7 GW of generation capacity, and the official website estimates it would take roughly 18 square miles of solar panels to replace that capacity. https://www.songscommunity.com/about/virtual-tour https://www.songscommunity.com/about/virtual-tour
  - pfdietz 6y ago
    There is plenty of land. The notion that land constraints seriously limit solar is an oft-repeated canard. You can see this by either comparing the land needed to the land available, or by comparing the cost of land to the cost of the equipment that is put on the land. Nuclear's land use typically ignores the land used by the distribution network for its power. If you add that in, the land ratio of solar vs. nuclear is much smaller.
    - arrosenberg 6y ago
      > There is plenty of land. The notion that land constraints seriously limit solar is an oft-repeated canard. I mean, I guess that's technically true, but not all land is made the same - solar is obviously going to be more productive in California, Arizona and Florida than it will be in Washington or Maine. I'm also not arguing that we can't do it because of land — it's poor land use, and works counter to the goal of sequestering carbon out of the atmosphere. How many ecosystems should be destroy by covering it in panels, when we could install a couple dozen mass manufactured nuclear plants and call it a day? > Nuclear's land use typically ignores the land used by the distribution network for its power. How do you figure? You are going to have transmission from the desert to cities, and you will need last mile delivery either way. When you do the math on the number of 18 square mile solar plants you would need for the equivalent number of small-footprint nuclear plants, it's really hard for me to see how this is true.
      - pfdietz 6y ago
        Yes, not all land is the same. I think people who worry about land are thinking about the land they see every day, which is in populated areas. They don't think about the vast quantities of very cheap land outside those urban areas. > How many ecosystems should be destroy by covering it in panels, Many fewer than were destroyed covering far vaster areas with farms. > How do you figure? You are going to have transmission from the desert to cities, and you will need last mile delivery either way. That doesn't contradict the point I made.
glogla 6y ago
The other thing is that 1500 MW solar with capacity factor of 11 % (that's number for Germany) is going to deliver significantly less energy than 1500 MW nuclear plant with capacity factor 98 %.