5 ms·

How is land use a red herring? It is the same importance as any other resource required for power production, maybe moreso because it is practically finite.

pydry 4y ago
Because it's vastly less important than cost. Solar and wind look bad compared to nuclear power if you only compare land use whereas the opposite is true if you compare costs as well.
- brutusborn 4y ago
  It may be less important, but still an important consideration. In regards to nuclear costs, most comparisons include projects which were plagued by redesign due to regulatory changes. It is likely that reusing designs will reduce costs significantly [0]. In addition, solar and wind must be paired with energy storage. Once this is done, they become uneconomical in most places. There's a reason that Europe, the most pro-solar/wind polity on the planet, has not been able to get energy independence despite their wealth. The costs for a resilient system are just too high. [0] https://constructionphysics.substack.com/p/why-are-nuclear-power-construction https://constructionphysics.substack.com/p/why-are-nuclear-p...
  - pydry 4y ago
    >In addition, solar and wind must be paired with energy storage. Once this is done, they become uneconomical in most places Really the only reason solar and wind have taken off is because, unsubsidized, they are cheaper than ALL other forms of energy - even coal (5x cheaper than nuclear). It's cheaper to pair them with gas than to pair them with pumped storage but it's vastly cheaper to pair them with pumped storage than to build a nuclear plant + storage combo. The only times nuclear power has been built was because it was deluged with subsidies and that will never change. >There's a reason that Europe, the most pro-solar/wind polity on the planet, has not been able to get energy independence despite their wealth. That reason is that it only became as cheap as coal about 6-7 years ago and because cost effectively shifting all your energy infrastructure from one form of power to another takes between 20-30 years and because they viewed achieving energy independence 10 years earlier as not important enough to triple their energy bills. The relative cheapness of gas also held up the development of pumped storage. Gas was a cheaper peaker.
    - brutusborn 4y ago
      Of course pairing with gas is cheaper, but that solution isn't going to be carbon neutral. If we only care about cost we should just go back to coal. I'm not convinced Europe's problems are just timing. Their reliance on gas is a symptom of the weaknesses of renewables. If it is indeed a timing problem, then will they still need gas for 20-30 years? Will we need to wait another 20-30 after that to switch to batteries? Why not spend the next 20 years building nuclear power plants that are already proven and already low carbon? It's not an either-or scenario for renewable and nuclear, but to be good for the climate gas is definitely out. Also, to respond to your point about pumped storage: what about the locales without mountains for pumping? Battery costs don't look pretty so increasing base load supply via nuclear to alleviate storage requirements makes sense.
rhdunn 4y ago
It depends on how you account for mitigating factors. With wind production, the wind turbines take up more space than other power sources. However, off-shore wind turbines negate that space requirement, so if a region can do that it is better than taking up land for energy production. With solar production, the solar panels take up more space than other power sources. However, it is common to place the panels on building roofs where no additional space is taken up. There are even places like France that make use of solar panels on the roofs of other building types like bus shelters and car parks. Done this way, solar does not need any additional/dedicated space. I've also seen small wind turbine/windmill blades on road signs along with a small solar panel in Wales that don't take up any additional space. These also have the advantage of being self-contained so you don't need to have cables connecting them to the power grid.

pydry 4y ago

Because it's vastly less important than cost. Solar and wind look bad compared to nuclear power if you only compare land use whereas the opposite is true if you compare costs as well.

brutusborn 4y ago
It may be less important, but still an important consideration. In regards to nuclear costs, most comparisons include projects which were plagued by redesign due to regulatory changes. It is likely that reusing designs will reduce costs significantly [0]. In addition, solar and wind must be paired with energy storage. Once this is done, they become uneconomical in most places. There's a reason that Europe, the most pro-solar/wind polity on the planet, has not been able to get energy independence despite their wealth. The costs for a resilient system are just too high. [0] https://constructionphysics.substack.com/p/why-are-nuclear-power-construction https://constructionphysics.substack.com/p/why-are-nuclear-p...
- pydry 4y ago
  >In addition, solar and wind must be paired with energy storage. Once this is done, they become uneconomical in most places Really the only reason solar and wind have taken off is because, unsubsidized, they are cheaper than ALL other forms of energy - even coal (5x cheaper than nuclear). It's cheaper to pair them with gas than to pair them with pumped storage but it's vastly cheaper to pair them with pumped storage than to build a nuclear plant + storage combo. The only times nuclear power has been built was because it was deluged with subsidies and that will never change. >There's a reason that Europe, the most pro-solar/wind polity on the planet, has not been able to get energy independence despite their wealth. That reason is that it only became as cheap as coal about 6-7 years ago and because cost effectively shifting all your energy infrastructure from one form of power to another takes between 20-30 years and because they viewed achieving energy independence 10 years earlier as not important enough to triple their energy bills. The relative cheapness of gas also held up the development of pumped storage. Gas was a cheaper peaker.
  - brutusborn 4y ago
    Of course pairing with gas is cheaper, but that solution isn't going to be carbon neutral. If we only care about cost we should just go back to coal. I'm not convinced Europe's problems are just timing. Their reliance on gas is a symptom of the weaknesses of renewables. If it is indeed a timing problem, then will they still need gas for 20-30 years? Will we need to wait another 20-30 after that to switch to batteries? Why not spend the next 20 years building nuclear power plants that are already proven and already low carbon? It's not an either-or scenario for renewable and nuclear, but to be good for the climate gas is definitely out. Also, to respond to your point about pumped storage: what about the locales without mountains for pumping? Battery costs don't look pretty so increasing base load supply via nuclear to alleviate storage requirements makes sense.

rhdunn 4y ago

It depends on how you account for mitigating factors. With wind production, the wind turbines take up more space than other power sources. However, off-shore wind turbines negate that space requirement, so if a region can do that it is better than taking up land for energy production. With solar production, the solar panels take up more space than other power sources. However, it is common to place the panels on building roofs where no additional space is taken up. There are even places like France that make use of solar panels on the roofs of other building types like bus shelters and car parks. Done this way, solar does not need any additional/dedicated space. I've also seen small wind turbine/windmill blades on road signs along with a small solar panel in Wales that don't take up any additional space. These also have the advantage of being self-contained so you don't need to have cables connecting them to the power grid.