4 ms·

"8 kWh of heat can be generated from 1 kg of coal, approx. 12 kWh from 1 kg of mineral oil and around 24,000,000 kWh from 1 kg of uranium-235." https://www.euro

"8 kWh of heat can be generated from 1 kg of coal, approx. 12 kWh from 1 kg of mineral oil and around 24,000,000 kWh from 1 kg of uranium-235." https://www.euronuclear.org/glossary/fuel-comparison/ https://www.euronuclear.org/glossary/fuel-comparison/ That is 24 giga watt hours from a kg or uranium. The article says California is set to "top 48 gigawatts" on some days. If it stayed at peak usage all year 48 * 24 * 365 / 24 = 17,520 kg of uranium for constant peak California consumption. That seems like a lot until you think about how much oil it saves

sologoub 4y ago
Interesting thought experiment - for the same capacity, we’d need 2300 sq.mi of photovoltaic gross land[1], assuming we need to way overbuild let’s make that 3x (6900 sq. mi). That’s equivalent to ~15% of Mojave desert being covered in solar and not accounting for battery storage needed. That same capacity would require 26 Diablo canyon equivalent stations or only 30.5 sq.mi. [2] Of course, Greater Los Angeles area itself is 33,954 sq.mi, so if we assume 10% of that are roofs, parking lots and other structures that can be covered with a solar panel setup somehow (big assumption, but this is a thought experiment after all), we’d have close to 1/2 of the total already covered. Add other populated areas in CA and things don’t look so outlandish with some combination of Nuclear/storage/solar. The big question is whether we have the social cohesion to pull this off or not. The train from LA to SF mess has me worried here… [1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_plants_in_the_Mojave_Desert https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_plants_in_the_Mo... [2]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_Power_Plant https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_Power_Plant
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  The initial quote is for "heat" energy. To get that into electricity in a steam turbine you lose about 2/3rds of it.
  - vitiral 4y ago
    Pretty sure modern steam conversion is now over 50%, should be higher for super heated. It's come a long ways.
Gwypaas 4y ago
Great that the alternative is renewables then. Arguing against fossil fuels is a strawman. You also have to consider what you need to get that 1kg of U-235 and building your huge power plant. This is called doing a life-cycle analysis. In that it has been shown the wind power is by far the cheapest in terms of material use, and solar and nuclear is about equal. > The TMR (total material requirement) of nuclear power generation is significantly lower than that of thermal power generation and is similar to that of renewables. On the basis of the low greenhouse gas emissions associated with nuclear power generation, like renewables, it can be considered favorable not only from the global warming perspective but also from a resource use perspective. "Life cycle resource use of nuclear power generation considering total material requirement" https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095965262202131X https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095965262...

sologoub 4y ago

Interesting thought experiment - for the same capacity, we’d need 2300 sq.mi of photovoltaic gross land[1], assuming we need to way overbuild let’s make that 3x (6900 sq. mi). That’s equivalent to ~15% of Mojave desert being covered in solar and not accounting for battery storage needed. That same capacity would require 26 Diablo canyon equivalent stations or only 30.5 sq.mi. [2] Of course, Greater Los Angeles area itself is 33,954 sq.mi, so if we assume 10% of that are roofs, parking lots and other structures that can be covered with a solar panel setup somehow (big assumption, but this is a thought experiment after all), we’d have close to 1/2 of the total already covered. Add other populated areas in CA and things don’t look so outlandish with some combination of Nuclear/storage/solar. The big question is whether we have the social cohesion to pull this off or not. The train from LA to SF mess has me worried here… [1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_plants_in_the_Mojave_Desert https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_plants_in_the_Mo... [2]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_Power_Plant https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_Power_Plant

ZeroGravitas 4y ago
The initial quote is for "heat" energy. To get that into electricity in a steam turbine you lose about 2/3rds of it.
- vitiral 4y ago
  Pretty sure modern steam conversion is now over 50%, should be higher for super heated. It's come a long ways.

Gwypaas 4y ago

Great that the alternative is renewables then. Arguing against fossil fuels is a strawman. You also have to consider what you need to get that 1kg of U-235 and building your huge power plant. This is called doing a life-cycle analysis. In that it has been shown the wind power is by far the cheapest in terms of material use, and solar and nuclear is about equal. > The TMR (total material requirement) of nuclear power generation is significantly lower than that of thermal power generation and is similar to that of renewables. On the basis of the low greenhouse gas emissions associated with nuclear power generation, like renewables, it can be considered favorable not only from the global warming perspective but also from a resource use perspective. "Life cycle resource use of nuclear power generation considering total material requirement" https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095965262202131X https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095965262...