5 ms·

I have looked into it and I don't find that at all. I agree that solar and wind are more profitable in the short term, and they fit the private-equity model of

I have looked into it and I don't find that at all. I agree that solar and wind are more profitable in the short term, and they fit the private-equity model of funding much better than Nuclear. That has nothing to do with engineering and technology, nor about what the actual best long-term solution for securing our energy needs is. Even if Wind/Solar-only was viable (it's not), available everywhere (it's not), and substantially cheaper over the lifetime of the plants (it's competitive) it would not make sense to rely only on wind and solar. Besides the intermittency, it still takes 3.125MM solar panels for a 1GW plant according to the USDOE. By my math, that requires 1,400 acres of land just for the space the panels cover. Even if you improve on that, you are still talking about ~1,000 acres. And we'd need to build over-capacity to charge the batteries (more mining-intensive materials) for when power generation is low, it would require 2-4x the land. That's a LOT of land! It would still make sense to me to replace NatGas with cheap, carbon-free nuclear power and it's small physical footprint.

ncmncm 6y ago
Many crops benefit from partial shade, as do industrial-building roofs, and parking lots. So, claiming that land used for solar can't be used for anything else, and must be new development displacing ecosystems, is not honest. There are numerous viable storage alternatives; the only open question is which will turn out to be cheapest. Underground compressed air is interesting because it can use otherwise-mothballed turbines. Gravity storage, in the form of a 20,000 ton weight raised and lowered, is low tech. Ammonia and hydrogen are marketable or even directly useful on their own, when tankage is full.
- arrosenberg 6y ago
  > Many crops benefit from partial shade, as do industrial-building roofs, and parking lots. So, claiming that land used for solar can't be used for anything else, and must be new development displacing ecosystems, is not honest. Rooftop and parking lot solar are not nearly enough to meet our energy needs. 1,400 acres per GW! Are there fully-functional farms that can operate on 1,400 covered acres? Is there a functional gravity storage system on the market today that can store the output of a 1GW plant (besides existing dams, obviously)? Storing hydrogen is a nightmare, and neither Haber-Bosch, Sabatier, nor electrolysis are free. It's dishonest to hand-wave away the obvious flaws of a technology. It's useful, and we should use it. It's not a panacea.
  - runarberg 6y ago
    > Storing hydrogen is a nightmare So is storing enriched uranium. Again this is not a point in favor of nuclear.
    - arrosenberg 6y ago
      Not really - water, concrete, and lead all absorb radiation fantastically. There is currently no solution for hydrogen leaking and embrittlement.
      - ncmncm 6y ago
        If absorbing radiation were the problem to be solved, there would not be billions of dollars changing hands over the problem. But you knew that, and wrote what you did anyway. Ordinary aluminum contains hydrogen without incident. And, as noted on Wikipedia, "coal gas, 50% hydrogen, was carried in cast iron pipes for a half century without any embrittlement problems".
        arrosenberg 6y ago
        The long-term problem is about politics and education, not engineering or technology. But you knew that, and wrote what you did anyways (the multiple accusations of bad faith are noted, and completely unwarranted by the way). Carried and stored are different things, tho I'm not an expert on either. I'm getting my info from the US Department of Energy, who reports "Durability of hydrogen storage systems is inadequate. Materials and components are needed that allow hydrogen storage systems with a lifetime of 1500 cycles.". I'm not saying there aren't situations where hydrogen is valuable, but you still haven't demonstrated that we can go carbon-free without nuclear. No one has, because the math doesn't add up, at least not so far. https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-storage-challenges#:~:text=Durability%20of%20hydrogen%20storage%20systems,Refueling%20times%20are%20too%20long https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-storage-chall....
        ncmncm 6y ago

ncmncm 6y ago

Many crops benefit from partial shade, as do industrial-building roofs, and parking lots. So, claiming that land used for solar can't be used for anything else, and must be new development displacing ecosystems, is not honest. There are numerous viable storage alternatives; the only open question is which will turn out to be cheapest. Underground compressed air is interesting because it can use otherwise-mothballed turbines. Gravity storage, in the form of a 20,000 ton weight raised and lowered, is low tech. Ammonia and hydrogen are marketable or even directly useful on their own, when tankage is full.

arrosenberg 6y ago
> Many crops benefit from partial shade, as do industrial-building roofs, and parking lots. So, claiming that land used for solar can't be used for anything else, and must be new development displacing ecosystems, is not honest. Rooftop and parking lot solar are not nearly enough to meet our energy needs. 1,400 acres per GW! Are there fully-functional farms that can operate on 1,400 covered acres? Is there a functional gravity storage system on the market today that can store the output of a 1GW plant (besides existing dams, obviously)? Storing hydrogen is a nightmare, and neither Haber-Bosch, Sabatier, nor electrolysis are free. It's dishonest to hand-wave away the obvious flaws of a technology. It's useful, and we should use it. It's not a panacea.
- runarberg 6y ago
  > Storing hydrogen is a nightmare So is storing enriched uranium. Again this is not a point in favor of nuclear.
  - arrosenberg 6y ago
    Not really - water, concrete, and lead all absorb radiation fantastically. There is currently no solution for hydrogen leaking and embrittlement.
    - ncmncm 6y ago
      If absorbing radiation were the problem to be solved, there would not be billions of dollars changing hands over the problem. But you knew that, and wrote what you did anyway. Ordinary aluminum contains hydrogen without incident. And, as noted on Wikipedia, "coal gas, 50% hydrogen, was carried in cast iron pipes for a half century without any embrittlement problems".
      - arrosenberg 6y ago
        The long-term problem is about politics and education, not engineering or technology. But you knew that, and wrote what you did anyways (the multiple accusations of bad faith are noted, and completely unwarranted by the way). Carried and stored are different things, tho I'm not an expert on either. I'm getting my info from the US Department of Energy, who reports "Durability of hydrogen storage systems is inadequate. Materials and components are needed that allow hydrogen storage systems with a lifetime of 1500 cycles.". I'm not saying there aren't situations where hydrogen is valuable, but you still haven't demonstrated that we can go carbon-free without nuclear. No one has, because the math doesn't add up, at least not so far. https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-storage-challenges#:~:text=Durability%20of%20hydrogen%20storage%20systems,Refueling%20times%20are%20too%20long https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-storage-chall....
        ncmncm 6y ago