3 ms·

The problem with a cost comparison is that currently renewables account for less than ten percent of global energy generation. What do you think will happen to

The problem with a cost comparison is that currently renewables account for less than ten percent of global energy generation. What do you think will happen to the cost there as available resources dwindle, and demand for equipment increases? Also, I’m not sure those comparisons take into account the ~20 year lifespan of solar panels and windmills, versus the ~40-50 year lifespan of nuclear plants. Finally, another factor that may drastically reduce the cost of nuclear is the fabrication of small modular reactors which eliminate custom construction/permitting and simplify installation.

pfdietz 4y ago
They'll build more factories to make the renewable equipment. What, you think there's some inherent limit on the number of factories that can be built?
- xienze 4y ago
  > What, you think there's some inherent limit on the number of factories that can be built? No, but there are limits on the amount of raw materials that said factories can use to produce equipment.
  - pfdietz 4y ago
    Which raw material are you talking about? Be specific. I believe a global renewable energy system can be constructed using only elements available in essentially unlimited amounts, and using those elements at a modest scale compared to industrial society as a whole.
    - xienze 4y ago
      > Which raw material are you talking about? Be specific. Uh Lithium?
      - pfdietz 4y ago
        It's as if you think Li-ion batteries are the only kind that can exist. This is a generic problem with anti-renewable arguments: they argue against specific technologies rather than the entire class of possible technologies. (And then they go and posit all sorts of as-yet unbuilt reactor types, blithely ignoring the irony.)
      - ncmncm 4y ago
        Batteries will be only a negligible fraction of utility storage, and a negligible fraction of those will be lithium. Lithium is the most expensive storage. Utilities will choose the cheaper among many alternatives, not the most expensive; the which is why they are not building nukes.
      - epistasis 4y ago
        The lithium is there, it just needs capital investment. Ironically ESG has guided capital away from extractive industries like this. It's not a physical limitation, it's a timing of scaling limitation, and we haven't hit it in a hard way yet. Plenty of new lithium resources, and more being discovered all the time.
pfdietz 4y ago
The estimated life of solar panels is much greater than 20 years. There are 38 year old panels still in operation. The 40-50 year lifespan of a nuclear plant is also somewhat illusory, as planning on achieving that is a bet that competing technologies don't keep getting better. SMRs are talked about as being cheaper, but they have inherent diseconomies of scale. They need more materials and components per unit power output than large NPPs, and have inherently worse neutronics (this is why NPPs got large). The putative economies of scale of manufacturing are first consumed clawing back this loss, and it's not clear they can even do that.

pfdietz 4y ago

They'll build more factories to make the renewable equipment. What, you think there's some inherent limit on the number of factories that can be built?

xienze 4y ago
> What, you think there's some inherent limit on the number of factories that can be built? No, but there are limits on the amount of raw materials that said factories can use to produce equipment.
- pfdietz 4y ago
  Which raw material are you talking about? Be specific. I believe a global renewable energy system can be constructed using only elements available in essentially unlimited amounts, and using those elements at a modest scale compared to industrial society as a whole.
  - xienze 4y ago
    > Which raw material are you talking about? Be specific. Uh Lithium?
    - pfdietz 4y ago
      It's as if you think Li-ion batteries are the only kind that can exist. This is a generic problem with anti-renewable arguments: they argue against specific technologies rather than the entire class of possible technologies. (And then they go and posit all sorts of as-yet unbuilt reactor types, blithely ignoring the irony.)
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      Batteries will be only a negligible fraction of utility storage, and a negligible fraction of those will be lithium. Lithium is the most expensive storage. Utilities will choose the cheaper among many alternatives, not the most expensive; the which is why they are not building nukes.
    - epistasis 4y ago
      The lithium is there, it just needs capital investment. Ironically ESG has guided capital away from extractive industries like this. It's not a physical limitation, it's a timing of scaling limitation, and we haven't hit it in a hard way yet. Plenty of new lithium resources, and more being discovered all the time.

pfdietz 4y ago

The estimated life of solar panels is much greater than 20 years. There are 38 year old panels still in operation. The 40-50 year lifespan of a nuclear plant is also somewhat illusory, as planning on achieving that is a bet that competing technologies don't keep getting better. SMRs are talked about as being cheaper, but they have inherent diseconomies of scale. They need more materials and components per unit power output than large NPPs, and have inherently worse neutronics (this is why NPPs got large). The putative economies of scale of manufacturing are first consumed clawing back this loss, and it's not clear they can even do that.