5 ms·
Second, even with the correct metric, solar and wind are now beating nuclear and projected to continue to do so, widening the gap over time. This is true but n
by causi 5y ago
Second, even with the correct metric, solar and wind are now beating nuclear and projected to continue to do so, widening the gap over time.
This is true but not very significant since nuclear is still forty times safer than the next safest energy source, natural gas. Solar, nuclear, and wind all have a niche in a green future. Nuclear fits in locations with insufficient wind and solar resources and provides reliable base supply.
- pfdietz 5y agoWhy does nuclear have a niche in a green future? I don't see it surviving. Locations with insufficient wind/solar will be supplied externally, either by grid or by transport of synthetic chemical fuels. Places like very high latitudes (where wind is often very good, btw) are so sparsely populated they cannot by themselves sustain a nuclear industry.
- Aeolun 5y agoIf we string solar plants all around the planet, the sunny side can always supply the night side.
- kalleboo 5y agoThat would require world peace
- rekoil 5y agoAnd lossless energy transmission. And several large floating sea cities full of engineers to maintain it all.
- throw0101a 5y ago> If we string solar plants all around the planet, the sunny side can always supply the night side. Does this include stringing them across the Pacific Ocean, which covers thirty percent of the Earth's surface?
- willis936 5y agoAwfully optimistic when we can't even get one 200-mile HV line greenlit after 10 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_–_New_England_Transmission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_–_New_England_Transmiss...
- philipkglass 5y agoBuilding cables across the ocean raises much more demanding engineering problems but much less demanding political problems than building them across multiple states. You don't have to please a bunch of different regional governments and land owners when you're building across the ocean. If you have a government that can dictate national projects like in China you can build long cables over land even faster, but that political alternative also comes with its own problems (to put it mildly).
- dorgo 5y agoNaa, we use gigantic mirrows in space to bring light to the night side.
- caoilte 5y agoin theory SMRs don't need much maintenance so could work in these situations. And on the plus side, when they do melt down - not many casualties.
- pfdietz 5y agoWhen the entire Railbelt grid in Alaska (the largest grid there) has an average load of 600 MW, there simply isn't much market for SMRs at high latitudes.
- fsflover 5y ago> Why does nuclear have a niche in a green future? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26673987 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26673987 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26603464 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26603464
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- caoilte 5y ago> Nuclear fits in locations with insufficient wind and solar resources and provides reliable base supply. So remote islands basically (places not worth adding to a super grid). Fair enough. That's a very small niche though.
- qwytw 5y agoIs there currently any region in the world where wind and solar alone are capable of providing a reliable base supply?
- rekoil 5y agoIs that a rhetorical question? It sounds like an oxymoron. Neither solar nor wind can provide base power. Unless you can make hyperefficient batteries and guarantee that we'll see cloudless skies and constant wind.
- caoilte 5y agoyes. plenty. north america, europe, china - to name three examples. The larger your grid, the more reliably you can source renewables. It's not cheap to install the necessary high frequency inter-connectors but it is still waaaay cheaper than nuclear (see a different thread where i posted a link on an MIT study). Edit: also, you still need a lot of storage (probably 12-48 hours worth) but i posted another link showing how that's also way cheaper than nuclear.
- bryanlarsen 5y agoYou only need 3 hours worth of storage. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-26355-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-26355-z Take a look at the graphs at the back. It shows a 99.99% reliable grid made up of an optimal mix of solar & wind, 3x over-provisioned along with 3 hours of storage and a continental grid.
- dmitriid 5y agoI'm skimming this rightn now, but a quick question: do they take into consideration the space required by wind and solar farms? Also, three hours of storage for a continental grid? Nice dream.