3 ms·

Considering power density meaningless puts you in direct confrontation with reality. In physics you can't create energy, you can only convert it. So from what y

Considering power density meaningless puts you in direct confrontation with reality. In physics you can't create energy, you can only convert it. So from what you're converting from is the key consideration to take as that also determines the cost. And while nuclear is expensive at first, its longevity and reliability pays for itself. As it's further developed, that initial tax will only be reduced. As if you guys don't realize that this "renewable" stuff is pushed by a nuclear reaction that happened thousands of years ago in the core of a plasma ball that is 8 light minutes away? That is not efficient.

pfdietz 4y ago
What nonsense. I'm not denying power or energy density of nuclear is higher, I'm denying that this bare fact is relevant to any decision that we might make about using nuclear to power civilization. And no, power and energy density do not determine cost, in general. They might if all else were equal, but all else is NOT equal. Renewable sources can omit entire categories of equipment that thermal power plants require, and have a much lower requirement on reliability (both because the individual units are smaller, and because the consequences of their catastrophic failure are vastly smaller.) And no, nuclear's longevity and reliability do not pay for themselves. You're engaging in a bit of confrontation with economic reality there. Pointing to nuclear reactions occurring in the Sun and pretending that justifies using nuclear on Earth is just completely absurd.
- sto_hristo 4y ago
  > Why are you choosing a meaningless metric to decide on the technology? Learn to express yourself better. It's like building a house - your first choice is what ground you build it on - quick sands, swamp, or solid rock. If you don't take power density into consideration you're not going to make the right choice and then all your efforts will be meaningless. Denmark is almost 100% renewable (it imports some). France is 70% nuclear (net exporter). Denmark household pays 170.5% more than french household. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Electricity_price_statistics https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php... Here's a lecture on nuclear economics https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbeJIwF1pVY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbeJIwF1pVY
  - pfdietz 4y ago
    Why focus on energy or power density (ostensibly because they affect cost) when you can focus on cost itself? The answer to that is because if you focus on cost, nuclear loses big, so the dishonest nuclear proponent has to obfuscate things and pretend that individual input that indirectly affects cost (along with many other inputs) is somehow dominant.

pfdietz 4y ago

What nonsense. I'm not denying power or energy density of nuclear is higher, I'm denying that this bare fact is relevant to any decision that we might make about using nuclear to power civilization. And no, power and energy density do not determine cost, in general. They might if all else were equal, but all else is NOT equal. Renewable sources can omit entire categories of equipment that thermal power plants require, and have a much lower requirement on reliability (both because the individual units are smaller, and because the consequences of their catastrophic failure are vastly smaller.) And no, nuclear's longevity and reliability do not pay for themselves. You're engaging in a bit of confrontation with economic reality there. Pointing to nuclear reactions occurring in the Sun and pretending that justifies using nuclear on Earth is just completely absurd.

sto_hristo 4y ago
> Why are you choosing a meaningless metric to decide on the technology? Learn to express yourself better. It's like building a house - your first choice is what ground you build it on - quick sands, swamp, or solid rock. If you don't take power density into consideration you're not going to make the right choice and then all your efforts will be meaningless. Denmark is almost 100% renewable (it imports some). France is 70% nuclear (net exporter). Denmark household pays 170.5% more than french household. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Electricity_price_statistics https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php... Here's a lecture on nuclear economics https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbeJIwF1pVY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbeJIwF1pVY
- pfdietz 4y ago
  Why focus on energy or power density (ostensibly because they affect cost) when you can focus on cost itself? The answer to that is because if you focus on cost, nuclear loses big, so the dishonest nuclear proponent has to obfuscate things and pretend that individual input that indirectly affects cost (along with many other inputs) is somehow dominant.