5 ms·

According to 2014 Elon Musk, if you cover the same square footage as taken up by a nuclear power plant and its exclusion zone with solar cells, you’ll get more

by natch 6y ago

According to 2014 Elon Musk, if you cover the same square footage as taken up by a nuclear power plant and its exclusion zone with solar cells, you’ll get more electricity than the nuclear power plant would have supplied. 2014 was a long time ago. It’s possible both technologies have improved since then. I wonder why we don’t hear about this comparison more.

JoshTko 6y ago
That's for conventional nuclear. Small reactors will take a order less as they have structurally safer designs.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- natch 5y ago
  Don’t you love vaporware? It can do anything! Real-life non-vaporware solar + battery combo installations are improving and spreading all the time. By the time vaporware small nuclear materializes outside of demonstration projects (10 years? 20?) there’s no telling how efficient and ubiquitous solar + batteries will be.
bluedino 6y ago
In Tuscon, or Seattle?
- natch 5y ago
  Eastern Washington gets plenty of sun and it’s not that far as grids go.
politician 6y ago
That didn't seem right, so I looked up nuclear exclusion zones -- those things are huge! [1] https://cdn.britannica.com/s:800x1000/00/196800-050-E30A2B4A/Map-exclusion-zones-accidents-Chernobyl-Fukushima-Japan.jpg https://cdn.britannica.com/s:800x1000/00/196800-050-E30A2B4A...
- fulafel 6y ago
  I think the exclusion zones estabilished after NPP accidents may be different from the exclusion areas as designed as safety precautions (https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part100/part100-0011.html https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part100/p...).
- vidarh 6y ago
  They are huge, but they're also rare, and excessive. Especially for Chernobyl the exclusion zone includes vast areas no more radioactive than, say, Denver or other high altitude cities, and people kept working at Chernobyl (several of the reactors remained operational) for many years, and people have kept living within the exclusion zones. It was probably the right thing to set it as big as it was given we didn't know better at the time, but if anything Chernobyl has shown that the effects are far less severe than feared.
  - politician 6y ago
    Yeah, but per the Musk quote, I bet you really could pack enough solar panels into the Chernobyl exclusion zone to overtake the power produced by the plant itself.
    - vidarh 6y ago
      Quite possibly. But that is the only plant in the world with an exclusion zone that big, so it doesn't generalize. As such it's meaningless. It's likely to remain the only one with an exclusion zone that big given what we have learned about how low the lethality of Chernobyl was.
      - natch 5y ago
        I don’t think the quote was talking about post-accident Chernobyl though.
- jsight 6y ago
  I think this is a more realistic example. Note the proximity of houses: https://goo.gl/maps/GJQYr8yg6EYxSmZeA https://goo.gl/maps/GJQYr8yg6EYxSmZeA
EricE 6y ago
Probably because it ignores the fact that solar isn’t predictable (nighttime? clouds? dust?) and nuclear is. Solar is NOT a replacement for nuclear. It absolutely can augment power generation, but it - especially solar cells - is not a reliable base load provider. No amount of hand waving by solar cell proponents will change that. If we ever discover a way to reasonably store electrical power that’s far more reliable and cost effective than chemical batteries then that equation will change - but we aren’t there today. Nuclear is here now and there are more than enough designs that are inherently safe and cost effective that never get discussed because everyone emotionally freaks out as soon as the word “nuclear” is uttered :p
- kolinko 6y ago
  Solar + hydrogen is just as predictable as nuclear. It costs roughly twice as much (because of 50% loss on electrolysis and back), but ends up providing a stable power output independent of weather. It’s conparable in place to nuclear if I’m not mistaken, and it’s fault scenarios are less severe. Especially in US, with vast amounts of deserts, it seems like a no-brainer. (having said that, climate change is so urgent that I’d say do whatever it takes to get to zero emmissions - be it nuclear or solar)
  - natch 6y ago
    In support of your point, I’d add that when doing cost comparisons with nuclear, one has to be wary of the accounting tricks they play such as not factoring in the costs of failure scenarios. Or even end of life decommissioning in some cases.
  - EricE 6y ago
    Except if you are pitching it as a solution for the base load problem - where is anyone doing solar+hydrogen at scale? Where is anyone committing to doing it at scale - let alone in the near future? How do we know it will remain economical at scale? All kinds of fun things can happen between theory/demonstration and implementation in the real world. We do nuclear at scale today. The vast majority of blockers from doing more nuclear at scale today are political; not technical. That’s the other facet of this that always seems to get overlooked.
anonuser123456 6y ago
Sure, but nuclear runs 24/7 with dependable output. Build 100 nuclear power plants and you have 99.9999% uptime and no battery. If Elon is a willing to start selling power walls at 100$ / kwh retail at scale then we’ll talk.
fiftyfifty 6y ago
The same I would think is true with coal power plants. Our local coal plant has a huge footprint, especially when you consider the cooling pond/lake, scrubbers, support buildings etc. This is not even considering the mining of fissile material/coal to feed these facilities as well, which also often have a large footprint as well. Plus the additional storage of waste, both short term and long term.

by natch 6y ago

JoshTko 6y ago

That's for conventional nuclear. Small reactors will take a order less as they have structurally safer designs.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
natch 5y ago
Don’t you love vaporware? It can do anything! Real-life non-vaporware solar + battery combo installations are improving and spreading all the time. By the time vaporware small nuclear materializes outside of demonstration projects (10 years? 20?) there’s no telling how efficient and ubiquitous solar + batteries will be.

bluedino 6y ago

In Tuscon, or Seattle?

natch 5y ago
Eastern Washington gets plenty of sun and it’s not that far as grids go.

politician 6y ago

That didn't seem right, so I looked up nuclear exclusion zones -- those things are huge! [1] https://cdn.britannica.com/s:800x1000/00/196800-050-E30A2B4A/Map-exclusion-zones-accidents-Chernobyl-Fukushima-Japan.jpg https://cdn.britannica.com/s:800x1000/00/196800-050-E30A2B4A...

fulafel 6y ago
I think the exclusion zones estabilished after NPP accidents may be different from the exclusion areas as designed as safety precautions (https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part100/part100-0011.html https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part100/p...).
vidarh 6y ago
They are huge, but they're also rare, and excessive. Especially for Chernobyl the exclusion zone includes vast areas no more radioactive than, say, Denver or other high altitude cities, and people kept working at Chernobyl (several of the reactors remained operational) for many years, and people have kept living within the exclusion zones. It was probably the right thing to set it as big as it was given we didn't know better at the time, but if anything Chernobyl has shown that the effects are far less severe than feared.
- politician 6y ago
  Yeah, but per the Musk quote, I bet you really could pack enough solar panels into the Chernobyl exclusion zone to overtake the power produced by the plant itself.
  - vidarh 6y ago
    Quite possibly. But that is the only plant in the world with an exclusion zone that big, so it doesn't generalize. As such it's meaningless. It's likely to remain the only one with an exclusion zone that big given what we have learned about how low the lethality of Chernobyl was.
    - natch 5y ago
      I don’t think the quote was talking about post-accident Chernobyl though.
jsight 6y ago
I think this is a more realistic example. Note the proximity of houses: https://goo.gl/maps/GJQYr8yg6EYxSmZeA https://goo.gl/maps/GJQYr8yg6EYxSmZeA

EricE 6y ago

Probably because it ignores the fact that solar isn’t predictable (nighttime? clouds? dust?) and nuclear is. Solar is NOT a replacement for nuclear. It absolutely can augment power generation, but it - especially solar cells - is not a reliable base load provider. No amount of hand waving by solar cell proponents will change that. If we ever discover a way to reasonably store electrical power that’s far more reliable and cost effective than chemical batteries then that equation will change - but we aren’t there today. Nuclear is here now and there are more than enough designs that are inherently safe and cost effective that never get discussed because everyone emotionally freaks out as soon as the word “nuclear” is uttered :p

kolinko 6y ago
Solar + hydrogen is just as predictable as nuclear. It costs roughly twice as much (because of 50% loss on electrolysis and back), but ends up providing a stable power output independent of weather. It’s conparable in place to nuclear if I’m not mistaken, and it’s fault scenarios are less severe. Especially in US, with vast amounts of deserts, it seems like a no-brainer. (having said that, climate change is so urgent that I’d say do whatever it takes to get to zero emmissions - be it nuclear or solar)
- natch 6y ago
  In support of your point, I’d add that when doing cost comparisons with nuclear, one has to be wary of the accounting tricks they play such as not factoring in the costs of failure scenarios. Or even end of life decommissioning in some cases.
- EricE 6y ago
  Except if you are pitching it as a solution for the base load problem - where is anyone doing solar+hydrogen at scale? Where is anyone committing to doing it at scale - let alone in the near future? How do we know it will remain economical at scale? All kinds of fun things can happen between theory/demonstration and implementation in the real world. We do nuclear at scale today. The vast majority of blockers from doing more nuclear at scale today are political; not technical. That’s the other facet of this that always seems to get overlooked.

anonuser123456 6y ago

Sure, but nuclear runs 24/7 with dependable output. Build 100 nuclear power plants and you have 99.9999% uptime and no battery. If Elon is a willing to start selling power walls at 100$ / kwh retail at scale then we’ll talk.

fiftyfifty 6y ago

The same I would think is true with coal power plants. Our local coal plant has a huge footprint, especially when you consider the cooling pond/lake, scrubbers, support buildings etc. This is not even considering the mining of fissile material/coal to feed these facilities as well, which also often have a large footprint as well. Plus the additional storage of waste, both short term and long term.