6 ms·

You do know that you can exchange money for “actual real stuff”, including natural resources and land? So that why we cite costs in “money”.

• Swenrekcah 4y ago
  We cite costs in money because it’s useful. But you can’t eat money and you can’t build from it. You need actual stuff and land to do so. That is limited in a way that the money supply isn’t. Case in point, the currently ongoing global supply shortage.
  • Ma8ee 4y ago
    Uh? Try reading my comment again. That the federal reserve in principle could print unlimited money is irrelevant here.
  • wizofaus 4y ago
    I would think the point is that if nuclear costs more money, it's suggestive that it doesn't really use less resources than other options that cost less. Of course, that's not entirely true, as some of the costs for nuclear are insurance, which isn't priced particularly rationally, and of course, for human expertise, but that's arguably a far more scarce resource as are land and raw building materials - i.e. if you're using highly-skilled human brain power to design/build/run nuclear power plants, it prevents us from using that brain power to do other potentially more productive things (which might include coming up with better solutions for our environmental challenges). To be clear - I'm quite supportive of more nuclear power, but certainly not because it uses less land or resources.
    • Swenrekcah 4y ago
      I realise that, but this argument is based on the assumption that things in the world are rationally priced. When an NFT sells for more than a small power plant and a celebrity dog walker can be paid more than a nuclear engineer I don’t have a lot of faith in that premise.
      • wizofaus 4y ago
        Fair call. But while obviously imperfect, cost in $ is about the best estimate we have of the underlying value of all resources involved for a given economic output. Unfortunately it typically doesn't include externalities - if it had done so historically nuclear might already be cheaper now than fossil fuels.
    • deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
• lumost 4y ago
  Land use is a substantial concern for renewables and energy storage. We pay for electricity in marginal dollars. Currently we are building solar in low cost/utilization land. At some point prior to full rollout of renewables, this “cheap” land will run out.
  • pfdietz 4y ago
    Globally, there is no shortage of cheap land for a renewable-powered economy. If locally land is expensive, don't put energy-hungry industry there. This may mean Europe ends up deindustrializing vs. sun-soaked places closer to the equator. I suppose King Leopold wouldn't have liked that.
    • lumost 4y ago
      This is a fair statement, major industrial metros such as Chicago emerged due to proximity to resources (iron, grain), transportation (lakes, rivers, rail), and energy (coal). There surely will be a new equilibrium including newer power generation means, however many sunny places are far from water and other industrial inputs - moving steel mills to New Mexico is not quite a slam dunk in terms of transportation.
  • ncmncm 4y ago
    Land use is of absolutely no concern for renewables or storage. Solar and wind coexist synergetically with existing uses, so renewables do not need any dedicated land at all. There is enough existing reservoir area to float solar on, alone, for many times the world's conceivable power needs. Solar farms are built in deserts only because idiot investors want them there. They are fantastically less efficient there, and degrade in the heat. Concern trolling about land demand is the low road.
    • lumost 4y ago
      Why do you believe that land use is absolutely no concern? What data do you have for this? https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-82042-5 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-82042-5 Notes that at 80% penetration, solar will occupy roughly 5% of total land. The paper goes on to study methods of ensuring that this land use change does not drive net carbon increases from vegetation loss etc.