3 ms·

For me, this is the biggest part of the debate. It's not whether solar is up to the task or not, it's whether supply chains can support solar. From what we've s

For me, this is the biggest part of the debate. It's not whether solar is up to the task or not, it's whether supply chains can support solar. From what we've seen, no, they cannot. You can provision the solar plant and the storage array, but there likely just won't be enough panels or batteries being produced to build it. Pumped hydro storage is only viable in some places, and from what it seems to me all the other ideas for energy storage are theoretical at best. I'm not opposed to investing heavily in solar...it's the best long-term energy source we can hope for until we crack the fusion nut. However, until we have the resources in place to make it happen, fission is our best bet. This shouldn't be an either-or: we should be building both, as fast as we can. And once we have enough solar to power our collective needs consistently, we can decommission our nuclear plants and put this behind us.

pfdietz 4y ago
The supply chain for solar is in a much healthier state than the supply chain for nuclear.
- orthecreedence 4y ago
  Yes, at the current scale. Can it scale up to the task of entirely replacing fossil fuels before we can build the nuclear plants that can give the same output?
  - pfdietz 4y ago
    Yes. Scaling up solar and wind is much easier. Nuclear reactors require very heavy industry (look at what's needed to forge the reactor pressure vessel of a PWR). Nuclear also requires much higher quality manufacturing. A 1% failure rate on PV modules is acceptable. A 1% failure rate on reactor components is not. Installing wind and solar is also much easier than installing NPPs. Solar installation does not require expensive highly trained labor, again because the installations are robust to installation mistakes.
    - Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
      > Solar installation does not require expensive highly trained labor That's why the number of solar power related deaths (Mainly, falling from roofs) far exceeds the single fatality from nuclear related incidents we had this century.
      - pfdietz 4y ago
        A solar powered world will mostly use large scale ground mounted solar, which is much cheaper than putting it awkwardly on roofs.

pfdietz 4y ago

The supply chain for solar is in a much healthier state than the supply chain for nuclear.

orthecreedence 4y ago
Yes, at the current scale. Can it scale up to the task of entirely replacing fossil fuels before we can build the nuclear plants that can give the same output?
- pfdietz 4y ago
  Yes. Scaling up solar and wind is much easier. Nuclear reactors require very heavy industry (look at what's needed to forge the reactor pressure vessel of a PWR). Nuclear also requires much higher quality manufacturing. A 1% failure rate on PV modules is acceptable. A 1% failure rate on reactor components is not. Installing wind and solar is also much easier than installing NPPs. Solar installation does not require expensive highly trained labor, again because the installations are robust to installation mistakes.
  - Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
    > Solar installation does not require expensive highly trained labor That's why the number of solar power related deaths (Mainly, falling from roofs) far exceeds the single fatality from nuclear related incidents we had this century.
    - pfdietz 4y ago
      A solar powered world will mostly use large scale ground mounted solar, which is much cheaper than putting it awkwardly on roofs.