52 ms·

Energy density is far from vacuous. It goes directly to energy return on investment. Solar and wind require comparably MASSIVE amounts of raw materials because

by grej 4y ago

Energy density is far from vacuous. It goes directly to energy return on investment. Solar and wind require comparably MASSIVE amounts of raw materials because of their low power densities, and overall deliver a massively lower energy return on investment. Because of their intermittent nature they will also have to be paired with storage tech requiring still more raw materials and/or be built to a capacity which is far in excess of baseload requirements. All those input raw materials are mined, processed, and finished using, by and large, fossil fuels. Ergo the perceived low cost of renewables is actually based on the relative low cost of fossil fuels. And that fossil fuel price point which is rapidly rising under supply shortages.

pfdietz 4y ago
No, energy density doe not give energy return on investment. How could you possibly reach that conclusion? Moreover, EROEI is also a misleading metric. A technology with an EROEI of 100 is not 10x better than one with an EROEI of 10. The better metric is "energy after self-use" (say), which would be 1-1/EROEI. 0.99 is just 10% better than 0.9. This would be a minor advantage that could be easily swamped by other considerations. Solar and wind require raw materials (for at least some materials), but nuclear requires much more labor. After all, nuclear is demonstrably more expensive than renewables; those $ have to be going somewhere. I will add that solar actually uses much less concrete than nuclear, if mounted on the ground with steel earth anchors. Concrete production produces CO2 even in a fossil-fuel-free economy.
- grej 4y ago
  "nuclear is demonstrably more expensive than renewables" This is highly debatable, and very subject to change. Energy is the trump card of currencies, as the international currency market is now clearly demonstrating. Let's see what that renewable cost comparison looks like when the renewables that were previously being subsidized by cheap natural gas look like a year from now. This is not to say that solar and wind cannot have a meaningful place in the energy grid of the future. They absolutely have a place alongside of reliable base load generation. But it is a pipe dream to assert that we can mine enough raw materials necessary to produce the wind and solar generation, install them (often in less than favorable geographies), install their requisite energy storage tech, in order to make a meaningful dent in CO2 emissions anywhere near as quickly as a renaissance in nuclear power would offer the world.
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    > But it is a pipe dream to assert that we can mine enough raw materials necessary to produce the wind and solar generation, install them (often in less than favorable geographies), install their requisite energy storage tech, in order to make a meaningful dent in CO2 emissions anywhere near as quickly as a renaissance in nuclear power would offer the world. Solar module production is 240GW and wind is 100GW and both industries are growing at double digit percet yoy. Even at current production rates that will replace 15% of current fossil fuel energy before one new reactor like hinkley C will be built. At projected growth rates we'll see 2-4% of current primary energy in new capacity per year. The limiting resources (Silver and Copper) consume 2-5% of worldwide production. Compare to the exotic metals like niobium, hafnium, beryllium and so on needed for a nuclear reactor which cannot scale to 100s of reactors a year. Building a bunch of LWR plants won't solve the problem though because at those burnup rates world uranium reserves will only last around a century (and require just as much of that mining you complain about). Breeder plants and enrichment facilities will take even longer and cost even more. > But it is a pipe dream to assert that we can mine enough raw materials necessary to produce the wind and solar generation, install them (often in less than favorable geographies), install their requisite energy storage tech, in order to make a meaningful dent in CO2 emissions anywhere near as quickly as a renaissance in nuclear power would offer the world. Wind turbines can be built from abundant materials, but there is plenty of copper for current and future production (the same copper a steam turbine would use). Silicon cells are made of sand, Cu, Al, Ag, and Fe. There is only around 1g of silver per kW (and this proportion is decreasing faster than production is increasing) and a kg or so of copper for wiring -- most of which can be subbed out for Al. All this nuclear shilling is just directing energy away from the thing that will make fossil fuels irrelevent and helping the coal plants stay on for a few more years.

by grej 4y ago

pfdietz 4y ago

No, energy density doe not give energy return on investment. How could you possibly reach that conclusion? Moreover, EROEI is also a misleading metric. A technology with an EROEI of 100 is not 10x better than one with an EROEI of 10. The better metric is "energy after self-use" (say), which would be 1-1/EROEI. 0.99 is just 10% better than 0.9. This would be a minor advantage that could be easily swamped by other considerations. Solar and wind require raw materials (for at least some materials), but nuclear requires much more labor. After all, nuclear is demonstrably more expensive than renewables; those $ have to be going somewhere. I will add that solar actually uses much less concrete than nuclear, if mounted on the ground with steel earth anchors. Concrete production produces CO2 even in a fossil-fuel-free economy.

grej 4y ago
"nuclear is demonstrably more expensive than renewables" This is highly debatable, and very subject to change. Energy is the trump card of currencies, as the international currency market is now clearly demonstrating. Let's see what that renewable cost comparison looks like when the renewables that were previously being subsidized by cheap natural gas look like a year from now. This is not to say that solar and wind cannot have a meaningful place in the energy grid of the future. They absolutely have a place alongside of reliable base load generation. But it is a pipe dream to assert that we can mine enough raw materials necessary to produce the wind and solar generation, install them (often in less than favorable geographies), install their requisite energy storage tech, in order to make a meaningful dent in CO2 emissions anywhere near as quickly as a renaissance in nuclear power would offer the world.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  > But it is a pipe dream to assert that we can mine enough raw materials necessary to produce the wind and solar generation, install them (often in less than favorable geographies), install their requisite energy storage tech, in order to make a meaningful dent in CO2 emissions anywhere near as quickly as a renaissance in nuclear power would offer the world. Solar module production is 240GW and wind is 100GW and both industries are growing at double digit percet yoy. Even at current production rates that will replace 15% of current fossil fuel energy before one new reactor like hinkley C will be built. At projected growth rates we'll see 2-4% of current primary energy in new capacity per year. The limiting resources (Silver and Copper) consume 2-5% of worldwide production. Compare to the exotic metals like niobium, hafnium, beryllium and so on needed for a nuclear reactor which cannot scale to 100s of reactors a year. Building a bunch of LWR plants won't solve the problem though because at those burnup rates world uranium reserves will only last around a century (and require just as much of that mining you complain about). Breeder plants and enrichment facilities will take even longer and cost even more. > But it is a pipe dream to assert that we can mine enough raw materials necessary to produce the wind and solar generation, install them (often in less than favorable geographies), install their requisite energy storage tech, in order to make a meaningful dent in CO2 emissions anywhere near as quickly as a renaissance in nuclear power would offer the world. Wind turbines can be built from abundant materials, but there is plenty of copper for current and future production (the same copper a steam turbine would use). Silicon cells are made of sand, Cu, Al, Ag, and Fe. There is only around 1g of silver per kW (and this proportion is decreasing faster than production is increasing) and a kg or so of copper for wiring -- most of which can be subbed out for Al. All this nuclear shilling is just directing energy away from the thing that will make fossil fuels irrelevent and helping the coal plants stay on for a few more years.