3 ms·

> Do you think we can scale reactor production sufficiently to build thousands of reactors in two or three decades? Humans can do some cool things when we deci

> Do you think we can scale reactor production sufficiently to build thousands of reactors in two or three decades? Humans can do some cool things when we decide to. And scaling solar isn't as easy as it sounds. What's the cost, in energy and fossil fuels, to mine the materials, build and ship not just the panels but also the massive batteries required for solar? Not to mention having to constantly replace them? That's something I don't really see solar advocates addressing: if we have to burn every last gallon of oil to build our marvelous solar and battery arrays, then the planet is screwed anyway. Nuclear has much higher energy density. The problem is our economic system isn't accounting for energy output vs input...it uses prices, which are incredibly useless in this particular instance because prices do not internalize costs. Price and cost have significantly diverged, so you can't look at "what's cheaper in price" and assume that it's the optimal outcome. Why not attack from all angles? Build solar, but also crank out as many nuclear reactors as humanly possible.

adrianN 5y ago
I don't know how much more material you need for solar panels and wind turbines compared to nuclear reactors (there's a lot of concrete in a nuclear reactor too). But as you build more renewables the amount of fossil fuels you need for manufacturing goes down. It would of course be nice if externalities were better reflected in prices.
jhgb 5y ago
> Humans can do some cool things when we decide to. And scaling solar isn't as easy as it sounds. Weirdly enough, we're already currently annually installing so much solar power (in terms of actual energy output, not just nameplate) that it equates the progress accomplished in the nuclear industry in the past fifteen years or so. In other words, the nuclear industry would have to accelerate by more than an order to magnitude just to catch up with today's solar power growth. But of course solar power growth itself increases by around 30% every year on average... To me that almost sounds like it's scaling nuclear power that isn't as easy as it sounds. > but also the massive batteries required for solar Yeah, there's no such thing as "massive batteries required for solar" in a proper high-renewable grid. Simulations show (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2018.07.004 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2018.07.004) that in a cost-optimal grid mix, pumped hydro is economically preferred over batteries.
- orthecreedence 5y ago
  > pumped hydro is economically preferred over batteries. Which is a massive battery.
  - jhgb 5y ago
    If by "battery", you mean "a primary or secondary electrochemical cell or cells", as is its usual meaning, then it's not.

adrianN 5y ago

I don't know how much more material you need for solar panels and wind turbines compared to nuclear reactors (there's a lot of concrete in a nuclear reactor too). But as you build more renewables the amount of fossil fuels you need for manufacturing goes down. It would of course be nice if externalities were better reflected in prices.

jhgb 5y ago

> Humans can do some cool things when we decide to. And scaling solar isn't as easy as it sounds. Weirdly enough, we're already currently annually installing so much solar power (in terms of actual energy output, not just nameplate) that it equates the progress accomplished in the nuclear industry in the past fifteen years or so. In other words, the nuclear industry would have to accelerate by more than an order to magnitude just to catch up with today's solar power growth. But of course solar power growth itself increases by around 30% every year on average... To me that almost sounds like it's scaling nuclear power that isn't as easy as it sounds. > but also the massive batteries required for solar Yeah, there's no such thing as "massive batteries required for solar" in a proper high-renewable grid. Simulations show (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2018.07.004 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2018.07.004) that in a cost-optimal grid mix, pumped hydro is economically preferred over batteries.

orthecreedence 5y ago
> pumped hydro is economically preferred over batteries. Which is a massive battery.
- jhgb 5y ago
  If by "battery", you mean "a primary or secondary electrochemical cell or cells", as is its usual meaning, then it's not.