5 ms·
>Does that mean nuclear is just a totally great idea? No; the issue with nuclear is cost. Oh don't forget the other issue: It takes decades to build a new plan
by icedistilled 6y ago
>Does that mean nuclear is just a totally great idea? No; the issue with nuclear is cost.
Oh don't forget the other issue: It takes decades to build a new plant. We don't got that time.
For the $6 Billion or more it takes to build a nuclear plant that will then take 15 to 20 years to license and build before it generates a single Watt, we could have had a $6 Billion of solar and wind deployed and operating for 12+ years already.
- mycall 6y agoIf we had enough solar to power the world, would all of the solar cells actually lower the temperature of Earth due to being black?
- projektfu 6y agoSolar radiation that is absorbed by a solar panel will either heat the panel or generate electricity, which will also mostly become heat in the end. Reflected radiation will hopefully leave the earth. The things that cool the planet are mostly white — reflective. Clouds, white roofs, etc. Trees cool their local area by performing endothermic reactions creating carbohydrates and lignans.
- thaumasiotes 6y ago> Trees cool their local area by performing endothermic reactions creating carbohydrates and lignans. Let's not forget shade. How much are they cooling the air above them?
- Filligree 6y agoA fair bit. I don't have numbers for trees in particular, but one of the benefits of putting solar panels above farms is supposed to be cooler panels, which improves panel efficiency. Though most of that would be evaporation, not chemistry.
- chmod775 6y agoNo. If you want to keep the planet cool you need to use white surfaces or mirrors to reflect that energy back into space. Plus most electricty/energy that isn't stored somehow gets converted into heat. That's just how the universe works. If you capture some energy with your solar panel just to immediately release ~100% of it as heat again because you power your servers with it, you didn't accomplish anything.
- m4rtink 6y agoStill you could use that energy to power the work needed to bring the temperature down - produce the mirrors you mention, extract stuff from atmosphere that makes the temperature higher and store it, etc..
- fulafel 6y agoPossibly if we channeled the generatef power off-planet using eg high efficiency lasers.
- pdonis 6y ago> It takes decades to build a new plant. No, it doesn't. It only takes a few years. What takes decades is resolving all the NIMBY lawsuits.
- pfdietz 6y agoVogtle, Summer, Flamanville 3, and Olkiluoto 3 weren't delayed by NIMBY lawsuits. They were delayed by construction screw ups. Nuclear power plants are complex, and if they are required to be constructed to high standards, delays and overruns are almost inevitable. A PV field, on the other hand, is much simpler, with much more inherent redundancy, and can tolerate construction mistakes without either safety implications or substantial loss of capacity.
- fshr 6y agoThree of the plants you mentioned were 40+ years ago, right? Seems a bit outdated to point to in 2020.
- pfdietz 6y agoNone of the plants I mentioned were 40+ years ago. They are all contemporary. Vogtle is still under construction, Summer was cancelled a couple of years ago ($9B down the drain), Flamanville 3 is still under construction, and the last is near completion. You may be confused with earlier reactors at some of those sites.
- doikor 6y agoOlkiluoto 3 is a new design though. Making a second exact same one again will be much faster and cheaper as you have now worked out most of the issues. Olkiluoto 1 and 2 were both built quickly and on schedule. Mainly because they were already proven designs with tens of other units already built around the world (and the second reactor is practically identical with the first one)
- deleted 6y ago