5 ms·

>Eventually they will need to be replaced or they will generate so little power that they may as well not be there. Since they need to be replaced over time the

>Eventually they will need to be replaced or they will generate so little power that they may as well not be there. Since they need to be replaced over time then harvesting that 20% of sunlight is no longer free, but carries an ongoing resource cost. Is that more or less than the cost of getting the same total energy from a nuclear power plant? Yeah, is it more or less? I don't know either. But finally we're getting to the core of the question instead of debating about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. So at the end of its lifetime, be that 50 or 100 years in, a nuclear plant will have to be replaced, too. Basically a sudden 100% degradation. What is the resource cost for that, why are we not talking about that in this context? Because it's not "ongoing"? What's the resource cost for cooling with increasingly sparse water bodies that due to climate change will be less and less suited for it over the lifespan of the plant, BTW degrading its efficiency? What's the resource cost of plant dismantling and disposal, which goes on for decades after a plant has ceased to produce power? Would you like to include nuclear waste disposal as an ongoing resource cost in the consideration? Where do you draw the line? Are there any reliable estimates about these externalities that don't range wildly depending on which faction informed them? Do we want go down that rabbit hole? If not, then what's the point of fixating on this single aspect with regards to solar and solar only? Just because this one is a figure that's easy to quote out of context and sounds kinda bad? Can I make you realize that in this light it's hard to not think of this as deliberately cherry-picking an argument for argument's sake? These are all retorical questions, of course. FWIW, I don't claim to have any definite answers on the topic, and actually I do think that nuclear and renewables will have to complement each other to varying degrees around the globe, depending on many factors. I'm just trying to get across why the specific point your're clinging to seems so extremely moot to me. >Setting wind aside for the moment, why do you think the fact that solar panels are inefficient and degrade over time doesn't affect their viability as an alternative to nuclear power? Because it's already correctly priced into the running costs, just as - I suppose its proponents will claim - the corresponding facts above are for nuclear. Also, as has been pointed out, the ever repeated claim of solar inefficiency is baseless in the most literal sense, due to the lack of a comparable reference point for nuclear. 20% is an entirely meaningless number as long as the system boundaries are drawn so arbitrarily that it's impossible to benchmark. To put it bluntly, what would be sufficiently efficient for your taste? 30%? 60? 90? Can you explain why? It's just apples and pears on this level, the only reasonable comparison could come from a much broader view that you're explicitly not interested in. Anyway this discussion is going in circles. I'm not assuming bad faith on your side, but I don't think we'll come to an agreement either.

fluoridation 4y ago
>What is the resource cost for that, why are we not talking about that in this context? Presumably because nobody knows it. Personally, I'm not aware of any nuclear power plant that has been replaced. I also don't know why one would need to replace the entire plant and not just the core and possibly surrounding structures. >Would you like to include nuclear waste disposal as an ongoing resource cost in the consideration? Where do you draw the line? I don't think a line should be drawn anywhere. If we're talking about sustainability and total impact, we should look at all the facts, otherwise we're drawing conclusions off incomplete data. It should be possible to reduce the entire situation down to a single "impact per Joule" value that's comparable between any two power production systems, and every impact that's caused in order to produce that Joule (mining, land use, pollution, etc.). >If not, then what's the point of fixating on this single aspect with regards to solar and solar only? Just because this one is a figure that's easy to quote out of context and sounds kinda bad? Can I make you realize that in this light it's hard to not think of this as deliberately cherry-picking an argument for argument's sake? The point is that treating rooftop solar as "free" because it's supposedly a one-time cost is at best naive, at worst disingenuous. I have no interest in making nuclear look good or solar look bad, but let's call a spade a spade. Neither of them has zero impact on the environment. Pretending that they do means we're not making rational decisions. >Also, as has been pointed out, the ever repeated claim of solar inefficiency is baseless in the most literal sense, due to the lack of a comparable reference point for nuclear. I wouldn't say it's baseless. The figures on efficiency by themselves are measurable and true. It is true, though, that nothing can be said to be (in)efficient in an absolute sense, for the reasons you say. That's why I never said "solar panels are inefficient". All I said on the matter was that efficiency in this sense is exactly the same kind of efficiency that an IC engine has, because, as I said, dpierce9 was trying to reframe the discussion for no reason. Well, I don't think it was for no reason. >Because it's already correctly priced into the running costs, just as - I suppose its proponents will claim - the corresponding facts above are for nuclear. I'm not sure either are. Is the pollution caused by semiconductor production, or as you mentioned the warming of natural waters used as coolant, priced into the corresponding products? >the only reasonable comparison could come from a much broader view that you're explicitly not interested in. Yes, I agree, that's the only reasonable comparison. I would be interested in that if anyone came forward with an actual analysis from which we could derive a figure like the one I mentioned above.

fluoridation 4y ago

>What is the resource cost for that, why are we not talking about that in this context? Presumably because nobody knows it. Personally, I'm not aware of any nuclear power plant that has been replaced. I also don't know why one would need to replace the entire plant and not just the core and possibly surrounding structures. >Would you like to include nuclear waste disposal as an ongoing resource cost in the consideration? Where do you draw the line? I don't think a line should be drawn anywhere. If we're talking about sustainability and total impact, we should look at all the facts, otherwise we're drawing conclusions off incomplete data. It should be possible to reduce the entire situation down to a single "impact per Joule" value that's comparable between any two power production systems, and every impact that's caused in order to produce that Joule (mining, land use, pollution, etc.). >If not, then what's the point of fixating on this single aspect with regards to solar and solar only? Just because this one is a figure that's easy to quote out of context and sounds kinda bad? Can I make you realize that in this light it's hard to not think of this as deliberately cherry-picking an argument for argument's sake? The point is that treating rooftop solar as "free" because it's supposedly a one-time cost is at best naive, at worst disingenuous. I have no interest in making nuclear look good or solar look bad, but let's call a spade a spade. Neither of them has zero impact on the environment. Pretending that they do means we're not making rational decisions. >Also, as has been pointed out, the ever repeated claim of solar inefficiency is baseless in the most literal sense, due to the lack of a comparable reference point for nuclear. I wouldn't say it's baseless. The figures on efficiency by themselves are measurable and true. It is true, though, that nothing can be said to be (in)efficient in an absolute sense, for the reasons you say. That's why I never said "solar panels are inefficient". All I said on the matter was that efficiency in this sense is exactly the same kind of efficiency that an IC engine has, because, as I said, dpierce9 was trying to reframe the discussion for no reason. Well, I don't think it was for no reason. >Because it's already correctly priced into the running costs, just as - I suppose its proponents will claim - the corresponding facts above are for nuclear. I'm not sure either are. Is the pollution caused by semiconductor production, or as you mentioned the warming of natural waters used as coolant, priced into the corresponding products? >the only reasonable comparison could come from a much broader view that you're explicitly not interested in. Yes, I agree, that's the only reasonable comparison. I would be interested in that if anyone came forward with an actual analysis from which we could derive a figure like the one I mentioned above.