3 ms·
There's a much bigger problem with solar than storage: Energy Density. And energy density isn't a problem we can solve, it's bounded by the laws of physics. An
by oceanplexian 5y ago
There's a much bigger problem with solar than storage: Energy Density. And energy density isn't a problem we can solve, it's bounded by the laws of physics.
An average nuclear power plant puts out 1GW of energy in under 2.5 square kilometers, or 1 square mile. To achieve the same output (Since you'd need double the panels + storage to produce energy at night) you'd need to destroy 450 square kilometers of natural habitat to generate the same energy with solar panels. Realistically you'd need much more than that to account for cloudy days, and even more to offset electrical transmission losses because no one is building a solar farm in latitudes that see 100+ cloudy days per year.
Detractors of nuclear will argue "Why don't we do rooftop solar".. well, 56% of the world's population lives in cities where that's not possible, and that number isn't decreasing. NYC for example uses on the order of ~50GW or 51 Terawatts per year. You'd have to cover 15% of the state in silicon glass to get anywhere close to powering it. Personally, I'd rather take a chance on nuclear in lieu of the the massive amount of environmental destruction required to power modern society with solar energy.
- hebrox 5y agoDoing a quick sanity check, I think you're off by about 10x. 93% capacity factor nuclear [0] 1 GW 8700000000 kWh/year [1] 440 Wp @ 1960x1308x40 mm [2] 1.96 m 1.308 m 2.56368 m2 440 Wp 0.85 kWh factor for the Netherlands [3] 374 kWh per year 145.8840417 kWh/m2 59636406.42 m2 for to match nuclear 59.63640642 km2 [0] https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nuclear-power-most-reliable-energy-source-and-its-not-even-close https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nuclear-power-most-reliab... [1] https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1+GW+to+kwh+per+year https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1+GW+to+kwh+per+year [2] https://www.enfsolar.com/pv/panel-datasheet/crystalline/10499 https://www.enfsolar.com/pv/panel-datasheet/crystalline/1049... [3] https://www.tentensolar.nl/semi-overheid/dossiers/item/zonnepanelen-van-wp-naar-kwh.html https://www.tentensolar.nl/semi-overheid/dossiers/item/zonne...
- dane-pgp 5y agoExcellent sanity check, and I'll add another calculation for comparison. 449 nuclear reactors in the world [0] 2 disasters leading to large exclusion zones average area of those exclusion zones 1300 square miles [1] average exclusion zone per reactor (very roughly) 5.8 square miles 15.0 square kilometres So solar panels use up about 4 times as much space as "average" nuclear reactors (not including the relatively small area used by the plant itself[2]), but of course the value of land with solar panels on is much higher than radioactively contaminated land. [0] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/11/countries-that-have-the-most-nuclear-power-alternative-energy-electricity-climate-change/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/11/countries-that-have-t... [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29152930 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29152930 [2] https://www.nei.org/news/2015/land-needs-for-wind-solar-dwarf-nuclear-plants https://www.nei.org/news/2015/land-needs-for-wind-solar-dwar...
- rich_sasha 5y agoTo some extent, for a fair comparison, you should also use old sole panel efficiency here. Nuclear power plants have progressed tremendously in terms of safety. There’s also widespread reporting that the evacuations and exclusion zones, in Fukushima at least, were excessive.