4 ms·

You nailed it. What do you do when you have cloud cover for two weeks in a row? It’s not unheard of when some areas have 200+ days of at least some cloud covera

You nailed it. What do you do when you have cloud cover for two weeks in a row? It’s not unheard of when some areas have 200+ days of at least some cloud coverage. Nuclear is essential to avoid using coal and not having regional rolling blackouts due to weather. Solar alone is not realistic anytime soon in all regions of the US.

toenail 2y ago
> You nailed it. What do you do when you have cloud cover for two weeks in a row? Never mind the volcanic winter that seems to happen every few thousand years.
bryanlarsen 2y ago
Nuclear is a horrible complement to cheap intermittent renewables. Running it as a peaker multiples your costs and running it as base loads means selling power for negative prices when the sun is shining. Solar/wind plus batteries for short term storage and pumped hydro for long term storage is the cheapest way to get zero carbon energy. Pumped hydro is more expensive than fossil peakera so build out of that hasn't happened yet.
- kragen 2y ago
  do you have a source on the pumped hydro costs? i thought it was cheaper, just impossible most places
  - bryanlarsen 2y ago
    Costs are high because gas peakers exist and pumped storage generally doesn't. For rarely used long term storage, capital costs dominate, and already built sites don't incur additional capital costs. All you need is a hill and some water for pumped storage. Those sites are very plentiful. https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=XlGz2M4AAAAJ&citation_for_view=XlGz2M4AAAAJ:bnK-pcrLprsC https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?view_op=view_citation...
    - kragen 2y ago
      oh, yeah, i was thinking of places where you already have a reservoir suitable for hydroelectric production, not places where you have to build a dam
- wait_a_minute 2y ago
  How do you scale up to producing far more energy in that approach? What about the efficiency to produce large amounts of energy on large spacecraft and other planets and in the ocean?
  - kragen 2y ago
    are you asking how you scale up to producing far more energy with solar panels? world marketed energy consumption is about 18 terawatts, total terrestrial insolation is about 128000 terawatts, and current mainstream panels are about 23% efficient, so if you put solar panels on 50% of the earth's surface, you get 15000 terawatts, which is almost 1000 times more than the humans are using now. on the bottom of the ocean you probably need a different approach, maybe nuclear, or egs geothermal, or maybe running a cable up to the surface, or periodically receiving shipments of thermite in a submarine. some other planets will have no trouble with solar panels; others will need nuclear reactors
    - wait_a_minute 2y ago
      Getting only 1,000 times more than humans are using now but requiring 50% of the earth's surface seems like an awful deal. Not only do you need much more of the earth's surface, taking away from trees and habitats and other uses, but you need to significantly increase mining activities to produce the panels and their associated infrastructure. Whereas to get 15,000 additional terawawtts from more nuclear reactors, you could do that with 1,200 - 1,900 additional nuclear reactors occupying just the size of Rhode Island.
      - bryanlarsen 2y ago
        But we wouldn't need 50%, we'd need .05%
        wait_a_minute 2y ago
        That depends on how much more efficient solar panels get and what future energy requirements are, but in any case it'll be worse to scale energy creation with solar than with nuclear.

toenail 2y ago

> You nailed it. What do you do when you have cloud cover for two weeks in a row? Never mind the volcanic winter that seems to happen every few thousand years.

bryanlarsen 2y ago

Nuclear is a horrible complement to cheap intermittent renewables. Running it as a peaker multiples your costs and running it as base loads means selling power for negative prices when the sun is shining. Solar/wind plus batteries for short term storage and pumped hydro for long term storage is the cheapest way to get zero carbon energy. Pumped hydro is more expensive than fossil peakera so build out of that hasn't happened yet.

kragen 2y ago
do you have a source on the pumped hydro costs? i thought it was cheaper, just impossible most places
- bryanlarsen 2y ago
  Costs are high because gas peakers exist and pumped storage generally doesn't. For rarely used long term storage, capital costs dominate, and already built sites don't incur additional capital costs. All you need is a hill and some water for pumped storage. Those sites are very plentiful. https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=XlGz2M4AAAAJ&citation_for_view=XlGz2M4AAAAJ:bnK-pcrLprsC https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?view_op=view_citation...
  - kragen 2y ago
    oh, yeah, i was thinking of places where you already have a reservoir suitable for hydroelectric production, not places where you have to build a dam
wait_a_minute 2y ago
How do you scale up to producing far more energy in that approach? What about the efficiency to produce large amounts of energy on large spacecraft and other planets and in the ocean?
- kragen 2y ago
  are you asking how you scale up to producing far more energy with solar panels? world marketed energy consumption is about 18 terawatts, total terrestrial insolation is about 128000 terawatts, and current mainstream panels are about 23% efficient, so if you put solar panels on 50% of the earth's surface, you get 15000 terawatts, which is almost 1000 times more than the humans are using now. on the bottom of the ocean you probably need a different approach, maybe nuclear, or egs geothermal, or maybe running a cable up to the surface, or periodically receiving shipments of thermite in a submarine. some other planets will have no trouble with solar panels; others will need nuclear reactors
  - wait_a_minute 2y ago
    Getting only 1,000 times more than humans are using now but requiring 50% of the earth's surface seems like an awful deal. Not only do you need much more of the earth's surface, taking away from trees and habitats and other uses, but you need to significantly increase mining activities to produce the panels and their associated infrastructure. Whereas to get 15,000 additional terawawtts from more nuclear reactors, you could do that with 1,200 - 1,900 additional nuclear reactors occupying just the size of Rhode Island.
    - bryanlarsen 2y ago
      But we wouldn't need 50%, we'd need .05%
      - wait_a_minute 2y ago
        That depends on how much more efficient solar panels get and what future energy requirements are, but in any case it'll be worse to scale energy creation with solar than with nuclear.