5 ms·

I'd rather have a few more nuclear plants than vast arrays of panels scattered throughout land and sea. It can't be great to cover so much of nature.

jnsaff2 3y ago
Sure. Reality is that solar is being built at a much faster pace than predicted for much cheaper than predicted. Nuclear. Crickets. Also you are overplaying the amount of panels covering land and sea.
- theultdev 3y ago
  > Also you are overplaying the amount of panels covering land and sea. Oh, what's the amount of land & sea needed to rely on solar then? I also wonder (not asking) about the resources to make and replace each panel every 30 years vs the equivalent of making and maintaining nuclear plants. > Reality is that solar is being built at a much faster pace than predicted I see, so the Christmas wish is coming true! Ideally, I'd like to see the NRC dial back it's strict regulations. That's the main reason nuclear development is slow here. Other countries build nuclear much cheaper and quicker, just as safe. That's my Christmas wish.
  - jnsaff2 3y ago
    Which other countries are building nuclear in a meaningful capacity? We need a reactor going online each week to make a dent. Not disagreeing that the regulations in the US are way too onerous for nuclear.
    - Ygg2 3y ago
      Your ignoring the externalities of solar and wind power. Ignoring externalities of fossil fuels is what got us here in the first place. What happens if in 30 years we have to discuss nano PV particulates in blood and great PV patch in some ocean?
      - flir 3y ago
        Good thing nothing like that ever happens with nuclear. ("Externalities of wind power"? Oh.... is this bird strikes?)
        mrmanner 3y ago
        > ("Externalities of wind power"? Oh.... is this bird strikes?) Noise is problematic for wildlife, and in some areas we tend to build wind power in previously quiet areas.
        flir 3y ago
        Yeah, I'm just reading up on the subject. Apparently a badly placed wind farm can have knock-on effects on the whole food web. We quickly reach a "never do anything" impasse though.
        jnsaff2 3y ago
        This is like the peak of bikeshedding. Completely forgets the impact of climate change to the ecosystems.
        mrmanner 3y ago
        No, climate change is a far bigger problem. No one argues otherwise. There’s a pervasive idea, though, that renewable electricity production is harmless so there’s no point focusing on and avoiding waste. Adding to that, by acknowledging the harms of wind power we can locate it where it’s less harmful. Near cities or at sea, instead of destroying the few quiet places.
        defrost 3y ago
        If, as you say, you're reading up on the subject, side effects of wind power (and increased electric networks with solar, batteries, etc) are increased mining and concentrate processing of copper, nickel, lithium, etc. Not being a scaremonger, these are just real costs that come along for the ride into a brave new future. Spodumene processing in Malaysia from Australian concentrates (Mt. Weld, etc) to produce litium for batteries creates massive acid dams of wate and tonnes of radioactive waste. Copper mining has always been problematic (albeit out of sight for many) and much more of that is called for. Without being pro or anti any of the possible solutions for power generation we need moving forward, they all have toxic waste issues that bear looking into.
  - flir 3y ago
    I got curious so I googled: https://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/energy/2015/05/21/fact-checking-elon-musks-blue-square-how-much-solar-to-power-the-us/ https://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/energy/2015/05/21/fact-checking-elon... Seems doable to be honest, even if you assume real-world inefficiencies and double or triple the area required. Especially when you fold it into existing infrastructure (eg solar panels on buildings).
  - gforce_de 3y ago
    1 TW needs an area of 173 x 173 Km = ~30.000 Km². These are 0.02% of the earth landmass. Values are like this, when calculating conservative: 1 KWp needs an area around 10m². For enough maintenance distance multiply by 3 = 30m². => 1 Megawatt = 3 * 10m² * 1000 = 30.000m². => 1 Gigawatt = 3 * 10m² * 1000 * 1000 = 30.000.000m². => 1 Terawatt = 3 * 10m² * 1000 * 1000 * 1000 = 30.000.000.000m². Square root of 30.000.000.000m² = 173205m = 173Km. According to statista.com, the total earth landmass is 149.000.000 Km², so 30.000m² are 0.02% auf 149 million Km².
  - Kon5ole 3y ago
    There's a catch-22 in your wish. Nuclear is safe because of the regulations, and if you remove the regulations its not safe. The regulations make it expensive, but the lack of regulations is very likely to make it much much much much more expensive, very suddenly.
    - mensetmanusman 3y ago
      Other countries with safe nuclear have 4-5x faster regulatory oversight.
  - ben_w 3y ago
    > Oh, what's the amount of land & sea needed to rely on solar then? 7.6% of Nevada http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28US%20power%20consumption%20%2F%20%280.1%2A0.2%2A1kW%2Fm%5E2%29%29%20%2F%20area%20nevada http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28US%20power%20consump...
cm2187 3y ago
And intermittent electricity.
skrause 3y ago
If you reject cheap renewable energy today because of some nuclear power pipe dream you're basically a lobbyist for fossil fuels, even if you don't know it. Because there is absolutely no reason not to assume that those new nuclear power plants will once again take least 20 years to build (and will be 3 times over budget). That's quite a long time span that you need to fill with fossil fuels.
- pydry 3y ago
  Also a lobbyist for nuclear weapons and the military industrial complex. The only reason countries want to maintain an industrial nuclear supply chain and skills base is because they are a nuclear power already (France, Russia, US, etc.) or because they are purchasing the option to become one in a hurry (Iran, Sweden, South Korea, etc.). Governments don't firehose subsidies at a form of power that has an LCOE 5x the cost of its competitors and give it free catastrophe insurance on top for the hell of it.
  - dfgfek 3y ago
    >Also a lobbyist for nuclear weapons and the military industrial complex. People will post stuff like this and then act surprised when others are put off.
- mensetmanusman 3y ago
  20 Year regulatory delays can easily be overcome with political will. Political will requires a median IQ high enough to understand the tradeoffs and lack fear from decades pass, which I don't think is possible this century.
  - bryanlarsen 3y ago
    Most of that 20 years is construction time, not regulatory delays. For example, Finland's latest took 18 years to build after construction started. The regulatory delays were significant and on top of the 18 years.
RobinL 3y ago
You can meet the entire us demand for energy with solar panels covering just a tiny fraction of the land area: https://css.umich.edu/publications/factsheets/energy/photovoltaic-energy-factsheet https://css.umich.edu/publications/factsheets/energy/photovo...
throwaway4good 3y ago
Nuclear as it is today is much more expensive than solar.
- sokoloff 3y ago
  For each kWh delivered by the tech? Yes. For 24x7 grid supply at .9999 reliability? I’m not nearly so sure; it might be, and if that were the case, it’s great news, because it makes that almost an inevitability.
  - cm2187 3y ago
    And also for a new prototype reactor built every 10 years. If you build them in series like France did in the 70/80s or China now the cost would be greatly less. Only billionaires could afford the cheap smartphone you have in your pocket if it wasn't manufactured at scale.
Kon5ole 3y ago
There are many TWs of capacity available from rooftops. They are already covered.
tigershark 3y ago
Nuclear can’t simply be built as cheaply and fast as solar. https://www.iea.org/energy-system/electricity/nuclear-power# https://www.iea.org/energy-system/electricity/nuclear-power# “ Nuclear energy, with around 413 gigawatts (GW) of capacity operating in 32 countries” So the total global nuclear capacity ever built is now producing 413GW. Eerily the same as the solar capacity installed just last year. Whoever is pushing for nuclear instead of solar in 2023 either doesn’t have the slightest idea about the current energy market or simply wants to help the fossil fuels to survive given how long would it take to build a nuclear power plant and at what cost.
- sokoloff 3y ago
  > So the total global nuclear capacity ever built is now producing 413GW. Eerily the same as the solar capacity installed just last year. Peak power isn’t the right measure of comparison here, I don’t think. Average power and guaranteed power on a 24- hour basis seems a more logical comparison. “Can it run my heat pump at 5 in the morning on a cold winter day?” matters a lot to people.
  - tigershark 3y ago
    Why not? You don’t need always peak power, in the night when there is no solar production the peak power consumption is much lower. And even accounting for average generation, using the capacity factor of 20% for solar and 90% for nuclear it means that you would need 4 years and half at current production level to deploy the entire average energy produced by all the nuclear power plants in the world. But given how the solar deployments are increasing YoY it will be probably closer to 2y 1/2 or 3y.
    - sokoloff 3y ago
      When comparing a plant that typically makes energy equivalent to its rated power 24 hours per day to one that typically makes energy equivalent to its rated power times 4-5 hours per day, comparing plants by their rated power is far from telling the most useful comparison.
    - 3y ago
jmopp 3y ago
> It can't be great to cover so much of nature. You'd be surprised! Solar panels provide shade for local wildlife and improve crop/grazing yields due to the cover moderating the hot sun and providing spots for dew to form. As much as I love nuclear, we really should have started deploying it 10 years ago to make a difference. Solar is cheaper now and easier to deploy.
- badpun 3y ago
  The best moment to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best moment to plant a tree is now.
- lioeters 3y ago
  > Solar panels provide shade for local wildlife and improve crop/grazing yields This dual-use of land for solar panels and agriculture is called "agrivoltaics". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrivoltaics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrivoltaics
  - euroderf 3y ago
    When solar panels cover canals -- there should be a name for that too.
- mensetmanusman 3y ago
  Is solar plus equivalent battery storage cheaper? Genuinely curious how costs compare for 1TW nuclear to (1+X)TW solar + (1+Y)TWhr battery where X and Y could be integers depending on location for 12 + hr demand.
irdc 3y ago
With the projected economics of renewables you’re fighting a losing battle: there will be shining seas of panels from coast to coast. With the way PV panel pricing is going, at some point doing anything else will basically amount to theft.
bsder 3y ago
> It can't be great to cover so much of nature. You don't have to cover nature if you cover buildings. Los Angeles, for example, could provide a very significant amount of it's electricity needs if it got a 5 mile radius of commercial buildings to all cover their roofs with solar panels. Now, we can argue whether those buildings, themselves, are a good thing. But, given that they exist, we should cover them.

jnsaff2 3y ago

Sure. Reality is that solar is being built at a much faster pace than predicted for much cheaper than predicted. Nuclear. Crickets. Also you are overplaying the amount of panels covering land and sea.

theultdev 3y ago
> Also you are overplaying the amount of panels covering land and sea. Oh, what's the amount of land & sea needed to rely on solar then? I also wonder (not asking) about the resources to make and replace each panel every 30 years vs the equivalent of making and maintaining nuclear plants. > Reality is that solar is being built at a much faster pace than predicted I see, so the Christmas wish is coming true! Ideally, I'd like to see the NRC dial back it's strict regulations. That's the main reason nuclear development is slow here. Other countries build nuclear much cheaper and quicker, just as safe. That's my Christmas wish.
- jnsaff2 3y ago
  Which other countries are building nuclear in a meaningful capacity? We need a reactor going online each week to make a dent. Not disagreeing that the regulations in the US are way too onerous for nuclear.
  - Ygg2 3y ago
    Your ignoring the externalities of solar and wind power. Ignoring externalities of fossil fuels is what got us here in the first place. What happens if in 30 years we have to discuss nano PV particulates in blood and great PV patch in some ocean?
    - flir 3y ago
      Good thing nothing like that ever happens with nuclear. ("Externalities of wind power"? Oh.... is this bird strikes?)
      - mrmanner 3y ago
        > ("Externalities of wind power"? Oh.... is this bird strikes?) Noise is problematic for wildlife, and in some areas we tend to build wind power in previously quiet areas.
        flir 3y ago
        Yeah, I'm just reading up on the subject. Apparently a badly placed wind farm can have knock-on effects on the whole food web. We quickly reach a "never do anything" impasse though.
        jnsaff2 3y ago
        This is like the peak of bikeshedding. Completely forgets the impact of climate change to the ecosystems.
        mrmanner 3y ago
        No, climate change is a far bigger problem. No one argues otherwise. There’s a pervasive idea, though, that renewable electricity production is harmless so there’s no point focusing on and avoiding waste. Adding to that, by acknowledging the harms of wind power we can locate it where it’s less harmful. Near cities or at sea, instead of destroying the few quiet places.
      - defrost 3y ago
        If, as you say, you're reading up on the subject, side effects of wind power (and increased electric networks with solar, batteries, etc) are increased mining and concentrate processing of copper, nickel, lithium, etc. Not being a scaremonger, these are just real costs that come along for the ride into a brave new future. Spodumene processing in Malaysia from Australian concentrates (Mt. Weld, etc) to produce litium for batteries creates massive acid dams of wate and tonnes of radioactive waste. Copper mining has always been problematic (albeit out of sight for many) and much more of that is called for. Without being pro or anti any of the possible solutions for power generation we need moving forward, they all have toxic waste issues that bear looking into.
- flir 3y ago
  I got curious so I googled: https://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/energy/2015/05/21/fact-checking-elon-musks-blue-square-how-much-solar-to-power-the-us/ https://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/energy/2015/05/21/fact-checking-elon... Seems doable to be honest, even if you assume real-world inefficiencies and double or triple the area required. Especially when you fold it into existing infrastructure (eg solar panels on buildings).
- gforce_de 3y ago
  1 TW needs an area of 173 x 173 Km = ~30.000 Km². These are 0.02% of the earth landmass. Values are like this, when calculating conservative: 1 KWp needs an area around 10m². For enough maintenance distance multiply by 3 = 30m². => 1 Megawatt = 3 * 10m² * 1000 = 30.000m². => 1 Gigawatt = 3 * 10m² * 1000 * 1000 = 30.000.000m². => 1 Terawatt = 3 * 10m² * 1000 * 1000 * 1000 = 30.000.000.000m². Square root of 30.000.000.000m² = 173205m = 173Km. According to statista.com, the total earth landmass is 149.000.000 Km², so 30.000m² are 0.02% auf 149 million Km².
- Kon5ole 3y ago
  There's a catch-22 in your wish. Nuclear is safe because of the regulations, and if you remove the regulations its not safe. The regulations make it expensive, but the lack of regulations is very likely to make it much much much much more expensive, very suddenly.
  - mensetmanusman 3y ago
    Other countries with safe nuclear have 4-5x faster regulatory oversight.
- ben_w 3y ago
  > Oh, what's the amount of land & sea needed to rely on solar then? 7.6% of Nevada http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28US%20power%20consumption%20%2F%20%280.1%2A0.2%2A1kW%2Fm%5E2%29%29%20%2F%20area%20nevada http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28US%20power%20consump...

cm2187 3y ago

And intermittent electricity.

skrause 3y ago

If you reject cheap renewable energy today because of some nuclear power pipe dream you're basically a lobbyist for fossil fuels, even if you don't know it. Because there is absolutely no reason not to assume that those new nuclear power plants will once again take least 20 years to build (and will be 3 times over budget). That's quite a long time span that you need to fill with fossil fuels.

pydry 3y ago
Also a lobbyist for nuclear weapons and the military industrial complex. The only reason countries want to maintain an industrial nuclear supply chain and skills base is because they are a nuclear power already (France, Russia, US, etc.) or because they are purchasing the option to become one in a hurry (Iran, Sweden, South Korea, etc.). Governments don't firehose subsidies at a form of power that has an LCOE 5x the cost of its competitors and give it free catastrophe insurance on top for the hell of it.
- dfgfek 3y ago
  >Also a lobbyist for nuclear weapons and the military industrial complex. People will post stuff like this and then act surprised when others are put off.
mensetmanusman 3y ago
20 Year regulatory delays can easily be overcome with political will. Political will requires a median IQ high enough to understand the tradeoffs and lack fear from decades pass, which I don't think is possible this century.
- bryanlarsen 3y ago
  Most of that 20 years is construction time, not regulatory delays. For example, Finland's latest took 18 years to build after construction started. The regulatory delays were significant and on top of the 18 years.

RobinL 3y ago

You can meet the entire us demand for energy with solar panels covering just a tiny fraction of the land area: https://css.umich.edu/publications/factsheets/energy/photovoltaic-energy-factsheet https://css.umich.edu/publications/factsheets/energy/photovo...

throwaway4good 3y ago

Nuclear as it is today is much more expensive than solar.

sokoloff 3y ago
For each kWh delivered by the tech? Yes. For 24x7 grid supply at .9999 reliability? I’m not nearly so sure; it might be, and if that were the case, it’s great news, because it makes that almost an inevitability.
- cm2187 3y ago
  And also for a new prototype reactor built every 10 years. If you build them in series like France did in the 70/80s or China now the cost would be greatly less. Only billionaires could afford the cheap smartphone you have in your pocket if it wasn't manufactured at scale.

Kon5ole 3y ago

There are many TWs of capacity available from rooftops. They are already covered.

tigershark 3y ago

Nuclear can’t simply be built as cheaply and fast as solar. https://www.iea.org/energy-system/electricity/nuclear-power# https://www.iea.org/energy-system/electricity/nuclear-power# “ Nuclear energy, with around 413 gigawatts (GW) of capacity operating in 32 countries” So the total global nuclear capacity ever built is now producing 413GW. Eerily the same as the solar capacity installed just last year. Whoever is pushing for nuclear instead of solar in 2023 either doesn’t have the slightest idea about the current energy market or simply wants to help the fossil fuels to survive given how long would it take to build a nuclear power plant and at what cost.

sokoloff 3y ago
> So the total global nuclear capacity ever built is now producing 413GW. Eerily the same as the solar capacity installed just last year. Peak power isn’t the right measure of comparison here, I don’t think. Average power and guaranteed power on a 24- hour basis seems a more logical comparison. “Can it run my heat pump at 5 in the morning on a cold winter day?” matters a lot to people.
- tigershark 3y ago
  Why not? You don’t need always peak power, in the night when there is no solar production the peak power consumption is much lower. And even accounting for average generation, using the capacity factor of 20% for solar and 90% for nuclear it means that you would need 4 years and half at current production level to deploy the entire average energy produced by all the nuclear power plants in the world. But given how the solar deployments are increasing YoY it will be probably closer to 2y 1/2 or 3y.
  - sokoloff 3y ago
    When comparing a plant that typically makes energy equivalent to its rated power 24 hours per day to one that typically makes energy equivalent to its rated power times 4-5 hours per day, comparing plants by their rated power is far from telling the most useful comparison.
  - 3y ago

jmopp 3y ago

> It can't be great to cover so much of nature. You'd be surprised! Solar panels provide shade for local wildlife and improve crop/grazing yields due to the cover moderating the hot sun and providing spots for dew to form. As much as I love nuclear, we really should have started deploying it 10 years ago to make a difference. Solar is cheaper now and easier to deploy.

badpun 3y ago
The best moment to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best moment to plant a tree is now.
lioeters 3y ago
> Solar panels provide shade for local wildlife and improve crop/grazing yields This dual-use of land for solar panels and agriculture is called "agrivoltaics". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrivoltaics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrivoltaics
- euroderf 3y ago
  When solar panels cover canals -- there should be a name for that too.
mensetmanusman 3y ago
Is solar plus equivalent battery storage cheaper? Genuinely curious how costs compare for 1TW nuclear to (1+X)TW solar + (1+Y)TWhr battery where X and Y could be integers depending on location for 12 + hr demand.

irdc 3y ago

With the projected economics of renewables you’re fighting a losing battle: there will be shining seas of panels from coast to coast. With the way PV panel pricing is going, at some point doing anything else will basically amount to theft.

bsder 3y ago

> It can't be great to cover so much of nature. You don't have to cover nature if you cover buildings. Los Angeles, for example, could provide a very significant amount of it's electricity needs if it got a 5 mile radius of commercial buildings to all cover their roofs with solar panels. Now, we can argue whether those buildings, themselves, are a good thing. But, given that they exist, we should cover them.