28 ms·

Compare the EROEI on solar (~10) vs nuclear (~100), and LFTR (~1200 maybe...) in particular, there is no comparison. In the future we will need far more electri

Compare the EROEI on solar (~10) vs nuclear (~100), and LFTR (~1200 maybe...) in particular, there is no comparison. In the future we will need far more electrical energy, it's not enough to just replace what we currently have. Also if we want to actively remove carbon from the atmosphere, we will need a tremendous amount of power.

Tade0 5y ago
Problem is, we might not be able to build them fast enough. China is currently the leader in deployment of nuclear power, but even there wind power overtook it in terms of GWh delivered in 2013 and the difference was been widening ever since. Similarly within a decade solar went from delivering 1% of the energy nuclear did, to 70%. At this rate it will close the gap before 2025.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 5y ago
  If there is a will, there is a way. The US invented the nuclear bomb in just a few years with the Manhattan project. The biggest obstacle has been the anti-science FUD spread largely by environmental groups.
  - pfdietz 5y ago
    No, the biggest obstacles has been the gross economic failure of nuclear. The claims it would be cheap were always lies, although the boosters increasingly desperately blame anyone else they can.
- not2b 5y ago
  It's seems it would suffice to have enough nuclear power to keep the grid going when the sun is down and the wind isn't blowing. You could then have a zero-carbon system. You'd need designs that you can turn on and off easily. Maybe a bit of battery storage to handle transitions smoothly.
- seiferteric 5y ago
  It's a fair point, but we just don't know yet, which it is important for research to continue. From an intuitive sense though, I think our economic growth and our standard of living is tied to energy costs, and being tied to a low EROEI system means to me that it will limit our potential since a larger % of the economy must be devoted to building/replacing them rather than doing other things.
- j_walter 5y ago
  Unfortunately a lot of nuclear plants went offline and very few were built in the last 20 years. As they aged they were deemed to much of a risk and shut down. If they had continued to have been built then Solar would not have gained so much, but there was too much push back on nuclear after the Fukushima incident. https://www.powermag.com/taiwan-shuts-another-reactor-as-part-of-nuclear-free-goal/ https://www.powermag.com/taiwan-shuts-another-reactor-as-par...
mdorazio 5y ago
You need to qualify a few statements there. Total electricity consumption peaked in Western nations over a decade ago and has basically been flat or dropping since [1][2]. So when you say, "In the future, we will need far more electrical energy" it's missing ... "in the developing world." Which, personally, is not my first choice for where to put nuclear reactors. Second, we don't actually need to use a bunch of electricity to remove carbon from the atmosphere - I'm not sure what technology you're referring to there. The easiest way to do it is by growing as many trees as we can, which doesn't really take power at all aside from the initial planting. [1] https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/use-of-electricity.php https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/use-of-elect... [2] https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Electricity_production,_consumption_and_market_overview https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php...
- seiferteric 5y ago
  We definitely should plant more trees, but the idea that it is the solution to removing carbon I think has been pretty debunked at this point. Between increase in forrest fires, lack of rainfall, lack of available and viable land to grow trees and other issues, it just is not even close to the whole solution.
  - lenkite 5y ago
    Actually farming carbon consuming crops and then burying them instead of harvesting them is a probable/workable solution under research. Soil Sequestration. Done properly, it has benefits as read from this balanced article: https://www.greenbiz.com/article/carbon-sequestration-farms-actually-working-fight-climate-change https://www.greenbiz.com/article/carbon-sequestration-farms-...
- pfdietz 5y ago
  Biomass for CO2 sequestration is garbage -- it uses far too much land and sequesters far too little CO2.
  - deleted 5y ago
AtlasBarfed 5y ago
I am a massive LFTR stan, but we have to recognize that, EROEI aside, the total economics of nuclear aren't competitive in the current regulatory framework in the US versus alternative energy. I agree that theoretically those EROEI figures are correct/achievable, but PWR/LWR has so poisoned the brand of fission that we can't get those right now. We'll need a stable price target (and maybe paranoia of the Chinese) to get LFTR and better reactor design actually economical and the necessary political reforms.
pfdietz 5y ago
EROEI of 100 is not 10x better than an EROEI of 10, though. There is diminishing returns on EROEI. Relevant figure could be "net energy delivered" (or some such) that goes from .9 to .99, a 10% improvement. Also, I believe the EROEI of 10 for solar is for PV operated in Europe. But there's no reason to put the solar-powered PV factories in relatively bad locations like Europe.

Tade0 5y ago

Problem is, we might not be able to build them fast enough. China is currently the leader in deployment of nuclear power, but even there wind power overtook it in terms of GWh delivered in 2013 and the difference was been widening ever since. Similarly within a decade solar went from delivering 1% of the energy nuclear did, to 70%. At this rate it will close the gap before 2025.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 5y ago
If there is a will, there is a way. The US invented the nuclear bomb in just a few years with the Manhattan project. The biggest obstacle has been the anti-science FUD spread largely by environmental groups.
- pfdietz 5y ago
  No, the biggest obstacles has been the gross economic failure of nuclear. The claims it would be cheap were always lies, although the boosters increasingly desperately blame anyone else they can.
not2b 5y ago
It's seems it would suffice to have enough nuclear power to keep the grid going when the sun is down and the wind isn't blowing. You could then have a zero-carbon system. You'd need designs that you can turn on and off easily. Maybe a bit of battery storage to handle transitions smoothly.
seiferteric 5y ago
It's a fair point, but we just don't know yet, which it is important for research to continue. From an intuitive sense though, I think our economic growth and our standard of living is tied to energy costs, and being tied to a low EROEI system means to me that it will limit our potential since a larger % of the economy must be devoted to building/replacing them rather than doing other things.
j_walter 5y ago
Unfortunately a lot of nuclear plants went offline and very few were built in the last 20 years. As they aged they were deemed to much of a risk and shut down. If they had continued to have been built then Solar would not have gained so much, but there was too much push back on nuclear after the Fukushima incident. https://www.powermag.com/taiwan-shuts-another-reactor-as-part-of-nuclear-free-goal/ https://www.powermag.com/taiwan-shuts-another-reactor-as-par...

mdorazio 5y ago

You need to qualify a few statements there. Total electricity consumption peaked in Western nations over a decade ago and has basically been flat or dropping since [1][2]. So when you say, "In the future, we will need far more electrical energy" it's missing ... "in the developing world." Which, personally, is not my first choice for where to put nuclear reactors. Second, we don't actually need to use a bunch of electricity to remove carbon from the atmosphere - I'm not sure what technology you're referring to there. The easiest way to do it is by growing as many trees as we can, which doesn't really take power at all aside from the initial planting. [1] https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/use-of-electricity.php https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/use-of-elect... [2] https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Electricity_production,_consumption_and_market_overview https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php...

seiferteric 5y ago
We definitely should plant more trees, but the idea that it is the solution to removing carbon I think has been pretty debunked at this point. Between increase in forrest fires, lack of rainfall, lack of available and viable land to grow trees and other issues, it just is not even close to the whole solution.
- lenkite 5y ago
  Actually farming carbon consuming crops and then burying them instead of harvesting them is a probable/workable solution under research. Soil Sequestration. Done properly, it has benefits as read from this balanced article: https://www.greenbiz.com/article/carbon-sequestration-farms-actually-working-fight-climate-change https://www.greenbiz.com/article/carbon-sequestration-farms-...
pfdietz 5y ago
Biomass for CO2 sequestration is garbage -- it uses far too much land and sequesters far too little CO2.
- deleted 5y ago

AtlasBarfed 5y ago

I am a massive LFTR stan, but we have to recognize that, EROEI aside, the total economics of nuclear aren't competitive in the current regulatory framework in the US versus alternative energy. I agree that theoretically those EROEI figures are correct/achievable, but PWR/LWR has so poisoned the brand of fission that we can't get those right now. We'll need a stable price target (and maybe paranoia of the Chinese) to get LFTR and better reactor design actually economical and the necessary political reforms.

pfdietz 5y ago

EROEI of 100 is not 10x better than an EROEI of 10, though. There is diminishing returns on EROEI. Relevant figure could be "net energy delivered" (or some such) that goes from .9 to .99, a 10% improvement. Also, I believe the EROEI of 10 for solar is for PV operated in Europe. But there's no reason to put the solar-powered PV factories in relatively bad locations like Europe.