3 ms·

How so? It costs more per kwh than renewables. If you are going to store electricity, it may as well be from renewables (which also benefit the most from storin

How so? It costs more per kwh than renewables. If you are going to store electricity, it may as well be from renewables (which also benefit the most from storing power in a practical sense)

slackfan 4y ago
What's the total ROeI (return on energy invested) to engineer, build, deploy any piece of renewable? Multiple decades. What is is with nuclear? A day? A few weeks at most? That's why I point out the physics bit. This isn't about the cost, this is about being able to generate energy, not just try to build what is in essense a perpetual motion machine.
- Panzer04 4y ago
  It’s on the order of a few years for solar and wind, if I recall. It sounds hilariously optimistic to me that ROEI for nuclear would be days/weeks. The amount of infrastructure required to support a nuclear plant is huge. Regardless, so long as ROEI is reasonably positive, then cost is all that really matters (and regardless cost should include the effects of ROEI anyway)
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    Look up an LCA or fermi estimate it yourself. It's roughly on par with solar (4mo-2yr depending on just how unreliable it is). The biggest part they don't usually include is a couple thousand people driving to and from and working for 20 years, but even that is tiny. The mines (especially in a mass expansion scenario) are a little worse. Each fuel load takes up to a few months to pay off from a low yield open pit mine. The industry always uses Ranger or Cigar Lake for comparison which are anomalously high yield.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  The EPBT of new solar (<160 micron wafer monocrystalline on simple stakes) is 4 to 18 months depending on how far you ship it and what the weather is like. New onshore wind is about 6 months. The nuclear plant is a few months to a couple of years, but each load of fuel is up to 3 months in every six years depending on where it comes from and how it is enriched. All are firmly in the category of "you're lying and spreading fossil fuel propaganda".

How so? It costs more per kwh than renewables. If you are going to store electricity, it may as well be from renewables (which also benefit the most from storing power in a practical sense)

slackfan 4y ago

What's the total ROeI (return on energy invested) to engineer, build, deploy any piece of renewable? Multiple decades. What is is with nuclear? A day? A few weeks at most? That's why I point out the physics bit. This isn't about the cost, this is about being able to generate energy, not just try to build what is in essense a perpetual motion machine.

Panzer04 4y ago
It’s on the order of a few years for solar and wind, if I recall. It sounds hilariously optimistic to me that ROEI for nuclear would be days/weeks. The amount of infrastructure required to support a nuclear plant is huge. Regardless, so long as ROEI is reasonably positive, then cost is all that really matters (and regardless cost should include the effects of ROEI anyway)
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  Look up an LCA or fermi estimate it yourself. It's roughly on par with solar (4mo-2yr depending on just how unreliable it is). The biggest part they don't usually include is a couple thousand people driving to and from and working for 20 years, but even that is tiny. The mines (especially in a mass expansion scenario) are a little worse. Each fuel load takes up to a few months to pay off from a low yield open pit mine. The industry always uses Ranger or Cigar Lake for comparison which are anomalously high yield.
Schroedingersat 4y ago
The EPBT of new solar (<160 micron wafer monocrystalline on simple stakes) is 4 to 18 months depending on how far you ship it and what the weather is like. New onshore wind is about 6 months. The nuclear plant is a few months to a couple of years, but each load of fuel is up to 3 months in every six years depending on where it comes from and how it is enriched. All are firmly in the category of "you're lying and spreading fossil fuel propaganda".