5 ms·

what does that even mean? how does this scale? is it the same cost at 1000x the demand to support things? ugh... this is so disingenuous. a nuclear install migh

what does that even mean? how does this scale? is it the same cost at 1000x the demand to support things? ugh... this is so disingenuous. a nuclear install might support millions of people but the same solar would be insanely huge AND require multiple backups/batteries.. it is so clear solar/wind is worse than nuclear. it is increasingly clear that our co2 output isn't that scary. we are "greening" the Earth. Sea level rise is well within normal bounds. Everything is _great.._

Schroedingersat 4y ago
Weren't you just asserting expertise on the contents of a solar cell and energy content of generation? How do you not know the relevant terms or name for the dominant variety? Did you even know there were different types before you made up numbers? Energy payback time. Passive Emitter Rear Contact photovoltaics They're made of sand and a tiny bit of silver. The amount of silver used total is going down per year in spite of production going up, and there are technologies being commercialized to make it use less silver than a nuclear reactor. Similarly LFP batteries only require a few dozen times as much energy to produce as one charge. Sodium uses even less, only requires abundant materials and is scaling up now. Then there are all of the other storage and load shifting methods. You'd have to increase uranium mining 5x to meet last year's renewable capacity additions, and 8x for next year's. The mines would make more land uninhabitable than the solar panels would cover (even if they weren't compatible with other land use). Trying to make a puny backwards imitation of a star with a few tiny scraps of left over supernova dust is woefully insufficient. Getting energy directly from the source is the only place there's enough available unless we want massive degrowth.
- __pache__ 4y ago
  > Weren't you just asserting expertise Was I wrong about something ? > Energy payback time. Right. This doesn't scale as close to as well as nuclear .......... > You'd have to increase uranium mining 5x ??? if things actually do become expensive, welcome to breeder reactors bro
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    > Was I wrong about something ? Extremely. > Right. This doesn't scale as close to as well as nuclear .......... Using extremely generous assumptions about high grade ore, and old, much simpler reactors you can come in slightly under that for about a month. https://world- https://world- nuclear.org/information-library/energy-and-the-environment/energy-return-on-investment.aspx EROI is significantly worse than solar because of ongoing energy costs for fuel and O&M. Especially if you use ore that is typical rather than the low hanging fruit. A perc module is around 60-120 depending on where it is placed. NPP is 15-60 depending on where its uranium comes from, how it is enriched and whether it uses reprocessing. >> Mining: Ranger ore in 2008 was 0.26% U head grade. Energy: 273 GJ/t U3O8, 322 GJ/tU, including significant development work. (Note that if ore of 0.01% U is envisaged, this would give 1638 TJ/yr, 70 PJ total for mining & milling, hence total 108 PJ for the centrifuge option, thus inputs become 3.3% of output and energy ratio becomes 30.) All Ranger inputs are thermal (it generates own electricity). The Schneider 2010 figure for mining & milling is similar to Rössing. > ??? if things actually do become expensive, welcome to breeder reactors bro You can't start a breeder reactor without fissile material so new capacity still needs just as much (they don't exist so can't say for sure, but about double per GW by fairly generous estimates, actually). Additionally most of the concepts need about 2-10% of annual Beryllium production per reactor. You have to fit something into the industrial capacity of the world before you can start gaslighting about costs that consistently go up or about costs of technologies that don't exist and might maybe start figuring out the hard bit of extraction and refuelling in ten years. Expanding Uranium mining 5x would require processing a billion tonnes of ore per year. For reference Iron Ore production is about 2.5 billion tonnes. You'd need at least 30 million tonnes of sulfuric acid (world production is about 180 million). Then for the reactors you'd need the most of the world supply of chromium. For a PWR you'd need half of the indium, and significant amounts of Zirconium, Cadmium and silver. Reliable Molten salt reactors don't exist and there's one MSR with okay capacity factor, but no information about how kuch noble metal they need is available. This is just to match renewables now mind you, not where they will be when you finally open your mines (which takes years or decades). The idea that Nuclear could scale to match renewables in under 50 years is laughable. Which is why fossil fuel shills butt into every conversation to claim renewables can't work and must be replaced with it.
nl 4y ago
> what does that even mean? EBPT = Energy payback time. > how does this scale? is it the same cost at 1000x the demand to support things? It scales wonderfully. Increased demand means the costs go down.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  At 1000x the demand that would be triple the total cumulative output of every nuclear reactor ever in newly installed production every year. Which is probably about 20x as many solar panels as could reasonably be created in a year with current production ready technology.

Schroedingersat 4y ago

Weren't you just asserting expertise on the contents of a solar cell and energy content of generation? How do you not know the relevant terms or name for the dominant variety? Did you even know there were different types before you made up numbers? Energy payback time. Passive Emitter Rear Contact photovoltaics They're made of sand and a tiny bit of silver. The amount of silver used total is going down per year in spite of production going up, and there are technologies being commercialized to make it use less silver than a nuclear reactor. Similarly LFP batteries only require a few dozen times as much energy to produce as one charge. Sodium uses even less, only requires abundant materials and is scaling up now. Then there are all of the other storage and load shifting methods. You'd have to increase uranium mining 5x to meet last year's renewable capacity additions, and 8x for next year's. The mines would make more land uninhabitable than the solar panels would cover (even if they weren't compatible with other land use). Trying to make a puny backwards imitation of a star with a few tiny scraps of left over supernova dust is woefully insufficient. Getting energy directly from the source is the only place there's enough available unless we want massive degrowth.

__pache__ 4y ago
> Weren't you just asserting expertise Was I wrong about something ? > Energy payback time. Right. This doesn't scale as close to as well as nuclear .......... > You'd have to increase uranium mining 5x ??? if things actually do become expensive, welcome to breeder reactors bro
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  > Was I wrong about something ? Extremely. > Right. This doesn't scale as close to as well as nuclear .......... Using extremely generous assumptions about high grade ore, and old, much simpler reactors you can come in slightly under that for about a month. https://world- https://world- nuclear.org/information-library/energy-and-the-environment/energy-return-on-investment.aspx EROI is significantly worse than solar because of ongoing energy costs for fuel and O&M. Especially if you use ore that is typical rather than the low hanging fruit. A perc module is around 60-120 depending on where it is placed. NPP is 15-60 depending on where its uranium comes from, how it is enriched and whether it uses reprocessing. >> Mining: Ranger ore in 2008 was 0.26% U head grade. Energy: 273 GJ/t U3O8, 322 GJ/tU, including significant development work. (Note that if ore of 0.01% U is envisaged, this would give 1638 TJ/yr, 70 PJ total for mining & milling, hence total 108 PJ for the centrifuge option, thus inputs become 3.3% of output and energy ratio becomes 30.) All Ranger inputs are thermal (it generates own electricity). The Schneider 2010 figure for mining & milling is similar to Rössing. > ??? if things actually do become expensive, welcome to breeder reactors bro You can't start a breeder reactor without fissile material so new capacity still needs just as much (they don't exist so can't say for sure, but about double per GW by fairly generous estimates, actually). Additionally most of the concepts need about 2-10% of annual Beryllium production per reactor. You have to fit something into the industrial capacity of the world before you can start gaslighting about costs that consistently go up or about costs of technologies that don't exist and might maybe start figuring out the hard bit of extraction and refuelling in ten years. Expanding Uranium mining 5x would require processing a billion tonnes of ore per year. For reference Iron Ore production is about 2.5 billion tonnes. You'd need at least 30 million tonnes of sulfuric acid (world production is about 180 million). Then for the reactors you'd need the most of the world supply of chromium. For a PWR you'd need half of the indium, and significant amounts of Zirconium, Cadmium and silver. Reliable Molten salt reactors don't exist and there's one MSR with okay capacity factor, but no information about how kuch noble metal they need is available. This is just to match renewables now mind you, not where they will be when you finally open your mines (which takes years or decades). The idea that Nuclear could scale to match renewables in under 50 years is laughable. Which is why fossil fuel shills butt into every conversation to claim renewables can't work and must be replaced with it.

nl 4y ago

> what does that even mean? EBPT = Energy payback time. > how does this scale? is it the same cost at 1000x the demand to support things? It scales wonderfully. Increased demand means the costs go down.

Schroedingersat 4y ago
At 1000x the demand that would be triple the total cumulative output of every nuclear reactor ever in newly installed production every year. Which is probably about 20x as many solar panels as could reasonably be created in a year with current production ready technology.