4 ms·

This is a mostly dumb and gimmicky idea. It will fail. If we want serious climate solutions we need either a massive build-out of nuclear power or wind plus uti

This is a mostly dumb and gimmicky idea. It will fail. If we want serious climate solutions we need either a massive build-out of nuclear power or wind plus utility-scale battery (or potentially ammonia) storage. Solar energy has a ridiculously low EROI. Solar energy on a car? Probably an even lower EROI.

Schroedingersat 4y ago
You're fifteen years out of date. A 2022 PERC cell has an EBPT of about 3-6 months and can be recycled after 30 years into a slightly worse cell which will last another 30 years. Only wind comes close.
- kdbeall_ 4y ago
  > A 2022 PERC cell has an EBPT of about 3-6 months Okay, so there's a new solar cell that is slightly better and perhaps can be manufactured a little cheaper. Great! So what? You have failed to take into account the burden of energy storage. The capacity factor for solar is an abysmal ~20% if not ~10% in some localities. Wind can have a superior capacity factor of up to ~50%. Energy storage is the constraint.
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    Renewables can provide about 30% of world electricity with no storage. Cheap storage like thermal (so the cheapest sand) and concentrating solar (even better EROI, comes with 12hr storage and is getting close to the price of gas) can make it provide another 20% of electricity and the 20-30% of primary energy that is low grade heat. PWRs can provide about 30% of world electricity and that same low grade heat and then you run out of Uranium. It also requires overprovision or storage for fluctuating demand and planned downtime and has correlated failures on the order of weeks or months. A capacity factor of <50% of the french fleet this yeae with unplanned correlated outages of 3 months during winter is far worse than new offshore wind with 65% forecastable output that fluctuates daily. Even with current storage technologies the nuclear option costs more than adding enough storage to cover the next 30% with renewables. Also your initial conceit was putting a solar panel on a 1 week battery to suppliment its input by a few miles a day. The constraint here is efficiency, daily mileage, travel velocity and area. You're welcome to keep bringing up boring predictable reactionary lies (I'm guessing something about density while ignoring the difference between fertile and fissile is next, then MOX, then breeders, then sea mining, then lies about mining), but this point has been fully addressed.
    - kdbeall_ 4y ago
      > then you run out of uranium Won't happen anytime soon. There's a lot. We have a century's worth, and the uranium price could easily be three times higher, without hardly an impact to utilities, and unlock more reserves and exploration. > capacity factor of <50% of the french fleet This not an indictment of nuclear power as a whole. American nuclear reactors have a ~90% capacity factor. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/data-and-statistics.php https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/data-and-statist... > Cheap storage like thermal (so the cheapest sand) Won't be effective for producing electricity. Might only be ~30% efficient. > far worse than new offshore wind Wind is reasonable but don't forget that reactors can last a ridiculously long time ~75 years. Wind turbines might only last ~20 years in a corrosive environment.
      - Schroedingersat 4y ago
        Oh we're doing the thing where you lie about things that have already been addressed > Won't happen anytime soon. There's a lot. We have a century's worth, and the uranium price could easily be three times higher, without hardly an impact to utilities, and unlock more reserves and exploration. A century at 300GW. Quadruple that and it's 25 years. Replace 2/3rds of electricity and it's under 20. And those are reserves at a price 3 times higher. New lower level reserves will be even more expensive to the point where the LCOE of solar is around the raw uranium price. > Won't be effective for producing electricity. Might only be ~30% efficient. ...Which is why I suggested it for the 20-30% of primary energy that is low grade heat where it is 100% efficient. > This not an indictment of nuclear power as a whole. American nuclear reactors have a ~90% capacity factor. If you want the anomalous US reliability, then you can't pretend you're going to pay historic french or japanese prices. Also what's the capacity factor of US nuclear reactors where construction started this century? > Wind is reasonable but don't forget that reactors can last a ridiculously long time ~75 years. Wind turbines might only last ~20 years in a corrosive environment. When individual unplanned repairs, or regular planned maintenance for a decade, or mid life refurbs cost more than an entire new wind turbine, this is a massive downside, not an upside. Pre-paying for 75 years worth of electricity rather than 25 means you can only build out a third of the capacity (or a twelfth given the much higher user facing cost per kWh even if you can find the cash to keep hiding the larger hidden costs) But before you can start gaslighting about the economics you have to demonstrate that it's physically possible. Which you have not done. Nuclear can make a small contribution, but it cannot meet the scale of renewables.

Schroedingersat 4y ago

You're fifteen years out of date. A 2022 PERC cell has an EBPT of about 3-6 months and can be recycled after 30 years into a slightly worse cell which will last another 30 years. Only wind comes close.

kdbeall_ 4y ago
> A 2022 PERC cell has an EBPT of about 3-6 months Okay, so there's a new solar cell that is slightly better and perhaps can be manufactured a little cheaper. Great! So what? You have failed to take into account the burden of energy storage. The capacity factor for solar is an abysmal ~20% if not ~10% in some localities. Wind can have a superior capacity factor of up to ~50%. Energy storage is the constraint.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  Renewables can provide about 30% of world electricity with no storage. Cheap storage like thermal (so the cheapest sand) and concentrating solar (even better EROI, comes with 12hr storage and is getting close to the price of gas) can make it provide another 20% of electricity and the 20-30% of primary energy that is low grade heat. PWRs can provide about 30% of world electricity and that same low grade heat and then you run out of Uranium. It also requires overprovision or storage for fluctuating demand and planned downtime and has correlated failures on the order of weeks or months. A capacity factor of <50% of the french fleet this yeae with unplanned correlated outages of 3 months during winter is far worse than new offshore wind with 65% forecastable output that fluctuates daily. Even with current storage technologies the nuclear option costs more than adding enough storage to cover the next 30% with renewables. Also your initial conceit was putting a solar panel on a 1 week battery to suppliment its input by a few miles a day. The constraint here is efficiency, daily mileage, travel velocity and area. You're welcome to keep bringing up boring predictable reactionary lies (I'm guessing something about density while ignoring the difference between fertile and fissile is next, then MOX, then breeders, then sea mining, then lies about mining), but this point has been fully addressed.
  - kdbeall_ 4y ago
    > then you run out of uranium Won't happen anytime soon. There's a lot. We have a century's worth, and the uranium price could easily be three times higher, without hardly an impact to utilities, and unlock more reserves and exploration. > capacity factor of <50% of the french fleet This not an indictment of nuclear power as a whole. American nuclear reactors have a ~90% capacity factor. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/data-and-statistics.php https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/data-and-statist... > Cheap storage like thermal (so the cheapest sand) Won't be effective for producing electricity. Might only be ~30% efficient. > far worse than new offshore wind Wind is reasonable but don't forget that reactors can last a ridiculously long time ~75 years. Wind turbines might only last ~20 years in a corrosive environment.
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      Oh we're doing the thing where you lie about things that have already been addressed > Won't happen anytime soon. There's a lot. We have a century's worth, and the uranium price could easily be three times higher, without hardly an impact to utilities, and unlock more reserves and exploration. A century at 300GW. Quadruple that and it's 25 years. Replace 2/3rds of electricity and it's under 20. And those are reserves at a price 3 times higher. New lower level reserves will be even more expensive to the point where the LCOE of solar is around the raw uranium price. > Won't be effective for producing electricity. Might only be ~30% efficient. ...Which is why I suggested it for the 20-30% of primary energy that is low grade heat where it is 100% efficient. > This not an indictment of nuclear power as a whole. American nuclear reactors have a ~90% capacity factor. If you want the anomalous US reliability, then you can't pretend you're going to pay historic french or japanese prices. Also what's the capacity factor of US nuclear reactors where construction started this century? > Wind is reasonable but don't forget that reactors can last a ridiculously long time ~75 years. Wind turbines might only last ~20 years in a corrosive environment. When individual unplanned repairs, or regular planned maintenance for a decade, or mid life refurbs cost more than an entire new wind turbine, this is a massive downside, not an upside. Pre-paying for 75 years worth of electricity rather than 25 means you can only build out a third of the capacity (or a twelfth given the much higher user facing cost per kWh even if you can find the cash to keep hiding the larger hidden costs) But before you can start gaslighting about the economics you have to demonstrate that it's physically possible. Which you have not done. Nuclear can make a small contribution, but it cannot meet the scale of renewables.