2 ms·

> By comparison at 2.9kWh per day panel * 2000 * 640 = 3,712,000 kWh per day from solar. How is being less efficient by ~10,000,000 kWh per day preferred? That

> By comparison at 2.9kWh per day panel * 2000 * 640 = 3,712,000 kWh per day from solar. How is being less efficient by ~10,000,000 kWh per day preferred? That's a significant difference in output. You seem fixated on price and are ignoring the reality that solar panels inconsistently generate that amount of energy whereas nuclear is more stable. If climate change is literally going to destroy the world, then cost should be of less concern than "can it give us the power we need while reducing emissions?" > Try and hit 100% with nuclear and your stuck with sub 50% capacity factors or your need a lot of grid storage both of which dramatically increases the price. Can you share what led you to this 50% capacity number?

Retric 5y ago
First intermittency is just a cost of battery question, because cost of one type or another is the only meaningful metric. Hell if land use bothers you we can put panels on rooftops, parking lots, between highways etc. It’s wasteful but plenty of people are doing it. Also, 13,968,000 kWh per day * 70% capacity factor = 9,777,600 kWh so solar only needs 3x to 4x the land. Except, nuclear reactors need land near large bodies of water making that land far more valuable. So because you can’t put a nuclear reactor on the ultra cheap land viable for solar panels Nuclear actually ends up with higher land costs.
- rglover 5y ago
  It's not a matter of technical feasibility (i.e., you could do it, but is it the best. most stable way), it's what is the goal. All of those batteries require fossil fuels to be produced, as do the solar panels. Favoring the model where you have to produce more (meaning more fossil fuels) is the antithesis to the greater point. The more efficient option—even if more expensive—should be preferred. You may end up getting similar results, but the overall impact of trying to make solar panels play catch-up is more destructive in the long run. And they don't even catch up. By your own math, even at 70% capacity a reactor is 3x as powerful. And re: the water requirements, those would also be a factor in hydroelectric so it's a moot point (assuming you see hydroelectric as a supplemental form of power to solar). I've yet to do research into inputs of manufacturing a plant vs solar/wind/etc. so can't give specifics but just in the abstract what you've described sounds more wasteful (and that's if it can be done—there is far less ambiguity with the nuclear option).
  - Retric 5y ago
    The only necessary CO2 release from batteries is based on the current state of our global economy. Reduction in the amount fossil fuels used in the grid and mining equipment directly reduces the use of fossil fuels manufacturing batteries and solar panels all the way down to zero. As part of being massively more expensive, Nuclear actually involves significantly more indirect fossil fuel usage due to those costs. For example all a nuclear power plants requires onsite fossil fuel generators which need to be run regularly: http://aa-powersystems.com/wp-content/uploads/3061871_OE_Brochure_NPP_2_14_lay_ES.pdf http://aa-powersystems.com/wp-content/uploads/3061871_OE_Bro... Yet those generators are left off of assessments of CO2 releases associated with nuclear power plants. Similarly the centrifuges reacquired to manufacture nuclear fuel require vast amounts of electricity to manufacture and run. The nameplate generation from Nuclear further ignores those ongoing energy costs.

Retric 5y ago

First intermittency is just a cost of battery question, because cost of one type or another is the only meaningful metric. Hell if land use bothers you we can put panels on rooftops, parking lots, between highways etc. It’s wasteful but plenty of people are doing it. Also, 13,968,000 kWh per day * 70% capacity factor = 9,777,600 kWh so solar only needs 3x to 4x the land. Except, nuclear reactors need land near large bodies of water making that land far more valuable. So because you can’t put a nuclear reactor on the ultra cheap land viable for solar panels Nuclear actually ends up with higher land costs.

rglover 5y ago
It's not a matter of technical feasibility (i.e., you could do it, but is it the best. most stable way), it's what is the goal. All of those batteries require fossil fuels to be produced, as do the solar panels. Favoring the model where you have to produce more (meaning more fossil fuels) is the antithesis to the greater point. The more efficient option—even if more expensive—should be preferred. You may end up getting similar results, but the overall impact of trying to make solar panels play catch-up is more destructive in the long run. And they don't even catch up. By your own math, even at 70% capacity a reactor is 3x as powerful. And re: the water requirements, those would also be a factor in hydroelectric so it's a moot point (assuming you see hydroelectric as a supplemental form of power to solar). I've yet to do research into inputs of manufacturing a plant vs solar/wind/etc. so can't give specifics but just in the abstract what you've described sounds more wasteful (and that's if it can be done—there is far less ambiguity with the nuclear option).
- Retric 5y ago
  The only necessary CO2 release from batteries is based on the current state of our global economy. Reduction in the amount fossil fuels used in the grid and mining equipment directly reduces the use of fossil fuels manufacturing batteries and solar panels all the way down to zero. As part of being massively more expensive, Nuclear actually involves significantly more indirect fossil fuel usage due to those costs. For example all a nuclear power plants requires onsite fossil fuel generators which need to be run regularly: http://aa-powersystems.com/wp-content/uploads/3061871_OE_Brochure_NPP_2_14_lay_ES.pdf http://aa-powersystems.com/wp-content/uploads/3061871_OE_Bro... Yet those generators are left off of assessments of CO2 releases associated with nuclear power plants. Similarly the centrifuges reacquired to manufacture nuclear fuel require vast amounts of electricity to manufacture and run. The nameplate generation from Nuclear further ignores those ongoing energy costs.