4 ms·

But renewable energies could replace nuclear (and other sources) for new plants that will be built in the future. Nuclear has a very high initial cost, and shut

But renewable energies could replace nuclear (and other sources) for new plants that will be built in the future. Nuclear has a very high initial cost, and shutting down current plants while they're still efficient and safe enough wouldn't be a sound choice, but for replacements of ageing plants and for new constructions cheaper and cheaper renewable energies could realistically displace them in the next decades.

InclinedPlane 15y ago
No. It can't. And pretending it can is a problem. Solar is nice. It'd be FAN-GODDAMN-TASTIC if we could use solar power as the backbone of our power generation. But we can't, it's just not feasible. Solar today is half of a power plant. Much like wind Solar generates power when its convenient to its own schedule, not ours, and sometimes that means it generates zero power. This. Is. A. Problem. It is, in fact, the problem of solar and wind power. Today we can use solar and wind serendipitously. They run on top of base power and when they provide power they allow us to keep gas powered generators offline. That's nice, but it's an edge solution, and we're already nearing the limits of that strategy. In order to replace base load power we need something that provides power reliably when it's convenient for humans. For solar or wind that means we need to invest in vast power storage plants. Things that do not currently exist even in designs. Things that are likely to be about as expensive to build and maintain as solar plants themselves will be. We do not have the technology to move to solar or wind power as a base load power source. And it seems likely that if we did have that technology it would put the full cost of those power sources at higher than even fission power plants. We can no more move to solar or wind power for the majority of our power needs than we could move to Thorium reactors, or fusion power.
- stcredzero 15y ago
  Today we can use solar and wind serendipitously. They run on top of base power and when they provide power they allow us to keep gas powered generators offline. Solar thermal+thermal storage could be used in climates closer to the equator. The US ran an experimental setup with 8 hours endurance after sundown. In the case of cooling equipment, solar coincides well with demand. You are most certainly right that solar won't cover all our baseload power needs. We don't need to cover it all. We just need to whittle down the unsustainable and environmentally unfriendly parts as much as we can. Subsidizing winners isn't something the government should be in the business of doing. However, penalizing losers is precisely what we have a government for, and CO2 emitting power is a losing proposition for the future.
greedo 15y ago
According to Wikipedia, the largest solar facility generates 354MW of electricity (assuming ideal conditions). In contrast, the recently approved AP1000s at the Plant Vogtle Georgia site each generate 1100 megawatts, rain or shine. So if the best solar facility, using 1600 acres of land can only provide 1/3 of one new reactor, your math just won't work.
- TeMPOraL 15y ago
  Exactly. I'm repeating myself in this tread, but seriously, I recommend to everyone taking a look at http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/ http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/ - it has all the numbers, including e.g. power densities of solar and wind plants in watts per square meter. According to that book, there's no way solar or wind could compete directly with nuclear. It just doesn't add up. There is no way to have any serious discussion about energy without doing at least some rudimentary calculations and comparing numbers, instead of adjectives and hopes.

InclinedPlane 15y ago

No. It can't. And pretending it can is a problem. Solar is nice. It'd be FAN-GODDAMN-TASTIC if we could use solar power as the backbone of our power generation. But we can't, it's just not feasible. Solar today is half of a power plant. Much like wind Solar generates power when its convenient to its own schedule, not ours, and sometimes that means it generates zero power. This. Is. A. Problem. It is, in fact, the problem of solar and wind power. Today we can use solar and wind serendipitously. They run on top of base power and when they provide power they allow us to keep gas powered generators offline. That's nice, but it's an edge solution, and we're already nearing the limits of that strategy. In order to replace base load power we need something that provides power reliably when it's convenient for humans. For solar or wind that means we need to invest in vast power storage plants. Things that do not currently exist even in designs. Things that are likely to be about as expensive to build and maintain as solar plants themselves will be. We do not have the technology to move to solar or wind power as a base load power source. And it seems likely that if we did have that technology it would put the full cost of those power sources at higher than even fission power plants. We can no more move to solar or wind power for the majority of our power needs than we could move to Thorium reactors, or fusion power.

stcredzero 15y ago
Today we can use solar and wind serendipitously. They run on top of base power and when they provide power they allow us to keep gas powered generators offline. Solar thermal+thermal storage could be used in climates closer to the equator. The US ran an experimental setup with 8 hours endurance after sundown. In the case of cooling equipment, solar coincides well with demand. You are most certainly right that solar won't cover all our baseload power needs. We don't need to cover it all. We just need to whittle down the unsustainable and environmentally unfriendly parts as much as we can. Subsidizing winners isn't something the government should be in the business of doing. However, penalizing losers is precisely what we have a government for, and CO2 emitting power is a losing proposition for the future.

greedo 15y ago

According to Wikipedia, the largest solar facility generates 354MW of electricity (assuming ideal conditions). In contrast, the recently approved AP1000s at the Plant Vogtle Georgia site each generate 1100 megawatts, rain or shine. So if the best solar facility, using 1600 acres of land can only provide 1/3 of one new reactor, your math just won't work.

TeMPOraL 15y ago
Exactly. I'm repeating myself in this tread, but seriously, I recommend to everyone taking a look at http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/ http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/ - it has all the numbers, including e.g. power densities of solar and wind plants in watts per square meter. According to that book, there's no way solar or wind could compete directly with nuclear. It just doesn't add up. There is no way to have any serious discussion about energy without doing at least some rudimentary calculations and comparing numbers, instead of adjectives and hopes.