4 ms·

‘Seems off’ is an odd way of dismissing an actual example. In theory it wins every time, in the real world it doesn’t. So sure, nuclear sometimes uses less la

by Retric 3y ago

‘Seems off’ is an odd way of dismissing an actual example. In theory it wins every time, in the real world it doesn’t. So sure, nuclear sometimes uses less land than solar nobody is seriously doubting it, the issue is it isn’t guaranteed and wind and geothermal are both vastly better from a land use perspective. Those 15 MW wind turbines don’t prevent people from farming beneath them, good luck doing anything that productive with land that close to a nuclear reactor.

stavros 3y ago
Right, but then your argument goes from "nuclear isn't more space-efficient than solar" to "in some rare cases, it's almost as bad as solar". Anyway, we probably need both, and we definitely need to stop burning fossil fuels, so let's not disparage one in favor of the other.
- Retric 3y ago
  “Wind and geothermal are more space efficient than nuclear” I never argued that nuclear always lost to solar, I even suggested it should be able to use less land than your examples. I am arguing it never beats wind.
  - stavros 3y ago
    From the data I can see (e.g. https://www.ourworldofenergy.com/vignettes.php?type=wind-power&id=9 https://www.ourworldofenergy.com/vignettes.php?type=wind-pow...), wind needs at least 30,000 acres per GW, a far cry from the nuclear 1,000 acres for 7 GW above.
    - Retric 3y ago
      You’re looking at the distance between turbines as if that land was useless for anything else. It’s not. Put a turbine in the on a 10,000 acre farm and you’ll still have a 9,999 acre farm. Put a nuclear reactor on that same land and you’ll be doing a lot less farming.
defrost 3y ago
You'll need to pick holes in: A 2015 report, “Land Requirements for Carbon-Free Technologies,” compared the land area that various types of electricity generation facilities would require to produce the same amount of electricity as a 1,000-megawatt nuclear power plant in a year. The results highlight the exemplary performance reliability of nuclear energy facilities as well as the very high energy density of nuclear fuel. A nuclear energy facility has a small area footprint, requiring about 1.3 square miles per 1,000 megawatts of installed capacity. This figure is based on the median land area of the 59 nuclear plant sites in the United States. In addition, nuclear energy facilities have an average capacity factor of 90 percent, much higher than intermittent sources like wind and solar. https://www.nei.org/news/2015/land-needs-for-wind-solar-dwarf-nuclear-plants https://www.nei.org/news/2015/land-needs-for-wind-solar-dwar... which also asserts that: Wind farms require up to 360 times as much land area to produce the same amount of electricity as a nuclear energy facility, a Nuclear Energy Institute analysis has found. Solar photovoltaic (PV) facilities require up to 75 times the land area. and other claims.
- Retric 3y ago
  > Wind farms require up to 360 times as much land area to produce the same amount of electricity Sure, look at this picture of corn growing between windmills. https://www.gasworld.com/story/wind-turbines-and-corn-fields-new-technology-for-carbon-to-fuel/ https://www.gasworld.com/story/wind-turbines-and-corn-fields... Gee I wonder how much land they are actually occupying. Or wowzers let’s talk about offshore wind farms… They’re using a definition that makes sense in one context and then applying it in a different context where it’s meaningless. Grid operators dislike base load power, the term is actually referring to a downside that it’s pricey to turn off. Now outside of that context it sure sounds great to pair with unreliable renewable energy. Except the downside still exists and you lose lots of money when you turn it off making it a terrible option when paired with renewable energy.
  - defrost 3y ago
    > They’re using a definition that makes sense in one context and then applying it in a different context where it’s meaningless. Much as you yourself have down above where the amount of land owned by a company surrounding a nuclear plant is conflated to be the amount of land required by a nuclear plant. To be clear, I picture a hybrid energy future and can easily link to pictures of sheep grazing under solar panels - I can also link to pictures of large scale solar farms that directly place solar panels on the ground, and others that elevate the panels but have no dual use of the land. All in all area used is a bit of a side show.

by Retric 3y ago

stavros 3y ago

Right, but then your argument goes from "nuclear isn't more space-efficient than solar" to "in some rare cases, it's almost as bad as solar". Anyway, we probably need both, and we definitely need to stop burning fossil fuels, so let's not disparage one in favor of the other.

Retric 3y ago
“Wind and geothermal are more space efficient than nuclear” I never argued that nuclear always lost to solar, I even suggested it should be able to use less land than your examples. I am arguing it never beats wind.
- stavros 3y ago
  From the data I can see (e.g. https://www.ourworldofenergy.com/vignettes.php?type=wind-power&id=9 https://www.ourworldofenergy.com/vignettes.php?type=wind-pow...), wind needs at least 30,000 acres per GW, a far cry from the nuclear 1,000 acres for 7 GW above.
  - Retric 3y ago
    You’re looking at the distance between turbines as if that land was useless for anything else. It’s not. Put a turbine in the on a 10,000 acre farm and you’ll still have a 9,999 acre farm. Put a nuclear reactor on that same land and you’ll be doing a lot less farming.

defrost 3y ago

You'll need to pick holes in: A 2015 report, “Land Requirements for Carbon-Free Technologies,” compared the land area that various types of electricity generation facilities would require to produce the same amount of electricity as a 1,000-megawatt nuclear power plant in a year. The results highlight the exemplary performance reliability of nuclear energy facilities as well as the very high energy density of nuclear fuel. A nuclear energy facility has a small area footprint, requiring about 1.3 square miles per 1,000 megawatts of installed capacity. This figure is based on the median land area of the 59 nuclear plant sites in the United States. In addition, nuclear energy facilities have an average capacity factor of 90 percent, much higher than intermittent sources like wind and solar. https://www.nei.org/news/2015/land-needs-for-wind-solar-dwarf-nuclear-plants https://www.nei.org/news/2015/land-needs-for-wind-solar-dwar... which also asserts that: Wind farms require up to 360 times as much land area to produce the same amount of electricity as a nuclear energy facility, a Nuclear Energy Institute analysis has found. Solar photovoltaic (PV) facilities require up to 75 times the land area. and other claims.

Retric 3y ago
> Wind farms require up to 360 times as much land area to produce the same amount of electricity Sure, look at this picture of corn growing between windmills. https://www.gasworld.com/story/wind-turbines-and-corn-fields-new-technology-for-carbon-to-fuel/ https://www.gasworld.com/story/wind-turbines-and-corn-fields... Gee I wonder how much land they are actually occupying. Or wowzers let’s talk about offshore wind farms… They’re using a definition that makes sense in one context and then applying it in a different context where it’s meaningless. Grid operators dislike base load power, the term is actually referring to a downside that it’s pricey to turn off. Now outside of that context it sure sounds great to pair with unreliable renewable energy. Except the downside still exists and you lose lots of money when you turn it off making it a terrible option when paired with renewable energy.
- defrost 3y ago
  > They’re using a definition that makes sense in one context and then applying it in a different context where it’s meaningless. Much as you yourself have down above where the amount of land owned by a company surrounding a nuclear plant is conflated to be the amount of land required by a nuclear plant. To be clear, I picture a hybrid energy future and can easily link to pictures of sheep grazing under solar panels - I can also link to pictures of large scale solar farms that directly place solar panels on the ground, and others that elevate the panels but have no dual use of the land. All in all area used is a bit of a side show.