3 ms·

11 year old link, pre-utility scale pv. Nice, That's not true when you add in the exclusion zone for nuclear. land use is different for "solar thermal" (Ivanpah

11 year old link, pre-utility scale pv. Nice, That's not true when you add in the exclusion zone for nuclear. land use is different for "solar thermal" (Ivanpah) and solar PV, as is the technology, the water use, the environmental concerns, and timing of the useful energy, the lifecycle, the time to build, the cost. But sure apples taste like oranges. Nuclear is great for baseload - but the cons outweigh the pros because they have to be on water. We gotta move forward.

titzer 6y ago
Yeah, well read this study from 4 years ago: https://www.strata.org/pdf/2017/footprints-full.pdf https://www.strata.org/pdf/2017/footprints-full.pdf Upshot there: all factors considered, including not only the area of the actual power generation facility, but also storage, transmission, mining...everything. Nuclear is nearly 4x better in terms of power per acre. I don't know what "exclusion zone" you are referring to. If you are assuming that every single nuclear plant is going to melt down Chernobyl style, this isn't a serious conversation, really. And I'd like to point out that access to water (for cooling nuclear plants) is easier to come by than access to sun.
- ldbooth 6y ago
  The access to water is the bug, not a feature since seismic events allow radioactive materials into water, like learned at fukashima. Access to sunlight is more prevalent than to non seismicly active areas. Here is the only nuke in construction in the US, and it's long been a debacle. https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2019/03/22/plant-vogtle-bad-bets-red-flags-missed-and.html https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2019/03/22/pla...
  - titzer 6y ago
    Neither the seismic event nor the megatsunami caused a release of radioactive material into waters at Fukushima. The failing of cooling because backup generators were flooded in the basement, leading to an explosion did. After that, they've released contaminated water into the ocean that can no longer be stored on site. Mistakes were made at Fukushima, but what radioactive waste release from seismic events is not what happened, and has never happened.

titzer 6y ago

Yeah, well read this study from 4 years ago: https://www.strata.org/pdf/2017/footprints-full.pdf https://www.strata.org/pdf/2017/footprints-full.pdf Upshot there: all factors considered, including not only the area of the actual power generation facility, but also storage, transmission, mining...everything. Nuclear is nearly 4x better in terms of power per acre. I don't know what "exclusion zone" you are referring to. If you are assuming that every single nuclear plant is going to melt down Chernobyl style, this isn't a serious conversation, really. And I'd like to point out that access to water (for cooling nuclear plants) is easier to come by than access to sun.

ldbooth 6y ago
The access to water is the bug, not a feature since seismic events allow radioactive materials into water, like learned at fukashima. Access to sunlight is more prevalent than to non seismicly active areas. Here is the only nuke in construction in the US, and it's long been a debacle. https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2019/03/22/plant-vogtle-bad-bets-red-flags-missed-and.html https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2019/03/22/pla...
- titzer 6y ago
  Neither the seismic event nor the megatsunami caused a release of radioactive material into waters at Fukushima. The failing of cooling because backup generators were flooded in the basement, leading to an explosion did. After that, they've released contaminated water into the ocean that can no longer be stored on site. Mistakes were made at Fukushima, but what radioactive waste release from seismic events is not what happened, and has never happened.