3 ms·

I will start this off by saying I am very pro nuclear. However, I think it is likely that the last nuclear power plant to be built in the United States will be

by pg_bot 4y ago

I will start this off by saying I am very pro nuclear. However, I think it is likely that the last nuclear power plant to be built in the United States will be built in the next 5-10 years. Looking at the trajectory of renewables and energy storage it seems that every other method of generating power will slowly be priced out of existence. Given the politics (fission) and uncertainty (fusion) of nuclear, I think it is highly unlikely that there is a long term future for the industry (100 years). Even though we will need some level of baseline power for when the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing, I think it is likely that geothermal or natural gas plants will fill that role. Nuclear is too bespoke, and you need a massive amount of capital before you generate one watt of power.

RealityVoid 4y ago
I have nothing against solar, except I am not persuaded by its promise. Would like for it to be able to deliver all that it promises. But right now, you have diminishing output as panels age, you don't have a storage solution that works at scale, you will have a large volume of panel waste at the end of panel lifetime. I seriously doubt even the average life time of a solar panel will be enough. I just looked up some numbers and apparently the embodied energy of a kilowatt installed panel is 3700 kw. One kilowatt will, apparently, produce on average 850kw per year (again, looked it up online, if you have better figures, please!). This means you need to run your panel for 4 years, assuming you use all the power produced in a meaningful way, in order to break even with 1 solar panel. I simply don't see how we can decarbonize at this rate. Now with residential panels, that's for sure.
- tralarpa 4y ago
  > you have diminishing output as panels age The degradation seems to be quite slow in practice. Below 0.5% per year, i.e. less than 15% after 25 years. > on average 850kw per year (again, looked it up online, if you have better figures, please!) I think the number is closer to 900-1000kWh per year for Central Europe and 1200KWh/year for Southern Europe and California, but I don't know whether the higher average temperature at those places increases aging. > This means you need to run your panel for 4 years Sounds good to me?

by pg_bot 4y ago

RealityVoid 4y ago

I have nothing against solar, except I am not persuaded by its promise. Would like for it to be able to deliver all that it promises. But right now, you have diminishing output as panels age, you don't have a storage solution that works at scale, you will have a large volume of panel waste at the end of panel lifetime. I seriously doubt even the average life time of a solar panel will be enough. I just looked up some numbers and apparently the embodied energy of a kilowatt installed panel is 3700 kw. One kilowatt will, apparently, produce on average 850kw per year (again, looked it up online, if you have better figures, please!). This means you need to run your panel for 4 years, assuming you use all the power produced in a meaningful way, in order to break even with 1 solar panel. I simply don't see how we can decarbonize at this rate. Now with residential panels, that's for sure.

tralarpa 4y ago
> you have diminishing output as panels age The degradation seems to be quite slow in practice. Below 0.5% per year, i.e. less than 15% after 25 years. > on average 850kw per year (again, looked it up online, if you have better figures, please!) I think the number is closer to 900-1000kWh per year for Central Europe and 1200KWh/year for Southern Europe and California, but I don't know whether the higher average temperature at those places increases aging. > This means you need to run your panel for 4 years Sounds good to me?