4 ms·

There are no big pushes into nuclear power. These are all tiny deployments that may never even happen. And those dumb turbines and solar panels produce power a

There are no big pushes into nuclear power. These are all tiny deployments that may never even happen. And those dumb turbines and solar panels produce power at a fraction of the cost of nuclear. And every year they get cheaper and more efficient. Which is why the market has continually decided over and over again to go in this direction.

m101 2y ago
Solar and wind emit a lot of CO2 upfront relative to the energy they produce down the line.
- nine_k 2y ago
  So does nuclear, and in much larger absolute extent: production of steel and concrete, used copiously in NPP construction, inevitably releases a lot of CO2. Melting silicon or smelting aluminum, not nearly as much. (IDK about epoxy resin production.) I suppose that instead of eliminating the processes that produce large amounts of CO2, we should embrace them, learn to capture the CO2 where it's produced in high concentrations (like steel plants or cement furnaces), and either bind the carbon in non-volatile ways, like in plastics, or produce fuel from it again and close the loop.
  - UltraSane 2y ago
    [dead]
  - m101 2y ago
    It's not about absolute but about relative to the amount of energy produced. Energy return in investment is <10x for solar, but more like 100x for nuclear. We have an energy budget to solver climate change. This is nothing to do with how much things cost.
- Angostura 2y ago
  Now run that in comparison to building and decommissioning a nuclear power station
  - m101 2y ago
    It works out even with that. It's actually better than that - many nuclear plants work well past their initial design lifetimes.
- Dylan16807 2y ago
  "A lot" is really subjective, so I'll link this chart instead: https://assets.solar.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Carbon-footprint-of-solar-panels.png https://assets.solar.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Carbon-f... I'd say 1-5% of coal is pretty good. Also as we make the power grid cleaner and switch to electric vehicles, the CO2 used in manufacturing goes down.
  - m101 2y ago
    It's not about comparing to coal but rather about comparing to other good alternatives, with that being nuclear. Energy return in investment is <10x for solar, but more like 100x for nuclear. We have an energy budget to solver climate change. This is nothing to do with how much things cost.
    - Dylan16807 2y ago
      You said solar and wind emit a lot, but according to the chart wind and nuclear are tied. Rooftop solar is worse, but 4x worse than wind/nuclear is still quite good (and non-rooftop solar is almost certainly better than that). Solar's energy return on investment is higher than 10x by my searching, and we should be mass producing all three technologies at this point.
- Ghaenergyyy 2y ago
  Its not a lot. Pls don't repeat this. Wind and solar turnaround is very fast...
  - m101 2y ago
    Energy return in investment is <10x for solar, but more like 100x for nuclear. We have an energy budget to solver climate change. This is nothing to do with how much things cost.
    - Ghaenergyyy 2y ago
      That was not my point. A solar panel is co2 neutral after 3 years and wind in a year. And if we could build nuclear properly in a reasonable fast way around the globe, i would be for investing it heavily anyway i'm just not controling it in anyway and the only thing actually working is solar, wind and battery. Low risk, broad spectrum investment (private, small companies, big, basically everyone can)
nine_k 2y ago
> produce power at a fraction of the cost Sadly, also for a fraction of the time. Until storage is solved in a satisfactory way, solar and wind will remain auxiliary. And the capacity should be in gigawatt-days.
- threeseed 2y ago
  Well that fraction coincides with when demand is the highest. And storage is being solved as we have more batteries being deployed and grid supply capable EVs becoming more popular. The market is deciding where money should be allocated and it's simply not going towards nuclear.
  - abfan1127 2y ago
    why would you want to share your EV battery capacity with the grid? I don't understand this. Range is entirely dictated by your EV capacity and you're going to "rent" back the capacity (and battery cycles) for night time hours? I don't understand how this would work at scale.
    - crazygringo 2y ago
      > why would you want to share your EV battery capacity with the grid? Because you'd get paid for it, and you like free money. And it should be pretty trivial to set an option to ensure you always have the necessary range for your daily commute by a little bit before you leave your home.
      - abfan1127 2y ago
        if services like Uber have shown anything, its that you can sell your vehicle's intrinsic value, depreciating it's value in the process. But will you be net positive after depreciated value?
        crazygringo 2y ago
        Obviously almost nobody would do it if it weren't net positive. And why wouldn't it be? The whole point here is for power companies to avoid buying as many batteries themselves, and their own batteries depreciate too. This isn't hard -- the power company adjusts the price it pays minute per minute, and you set the threshold at which it is profitable for you, taking battery cycles into account. And it becomes a classic supply and demand curve -- it's Econ 101.
canadianfella 2y ago
[dead]

m101 2y ago

Solar and wind emit a lot of CO2 upfront relative to the energy they produce down the line.

nine_k 2y ago
So does nuclear, and in much larger absolute extent: production of steel and concrete, used copiously in NPP construction, inevitably releases a lot of CO2. Melting silicon or smelting aluminum, not nearly as much. (IDK about epoxy resin production.) I suppose that instead of eliminating the processes that produce large amounts of CO2, we should embrace them, learn to capture the CO2 where it's produced in high concentrations (like steel plants or cement furnaces), and either bind the carbon in non-volatile ways, like in plastics, or produce fuel from it again and close the loop.
- UltraSane 2y ago
  [dead]
- m101 2y ago
  It's not about absolute but about relative to the amount of energy produced. Energy return in investment is <10x for solar, but more like 100x for nuclear. We have an energy budget to solver climate change. This is nothing to do with how much things cost.
Angostura 2y ago
Now run that in comparison to building and decommissioning a nuclear power station
- m101 2y ago
  It works out even with that. It's actually better than that - many nuclear plants work well past their initial design lifetimes.
Dylan16807 2y ago
"A lot" is really subjective, so I'll link this chart instead: https://assets.solar.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Carbon-footprint-of-solar-panels.png https://assets.solar.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Carbon-f... I'd say 1-5% of coal is pretty good. Also as we make the power grid cleaner and switch to electric vehicles, the CO2 used in manufacturing goes down.
- m101 2y ago
  It's not about comparing to coal but rather about comparing to other good alternatives, with that being nuclear. Energy return in investment is <10x for solar, but more like 100x for nuclear. We have an energy budget to solver climate change. This is nothing to do with how much things cost.
  - Dylan16807 2y ago
    You said solar and wind emit a lot, but according to the chart wind and nuclear are tied. Rooftop solar is worse, but 4x worse than wind/nuclear is still quite good (and non-rooftop solar is almost certainly better than that). Solar's energy return on investment is higher than 10x by my searching, and we should be mass producing all three technologies at this point.
Ghaenergyyy 2y ago
Its not a lot. Pls don't repeat this. Wind and solar turnaround is very fast...
- m101 2y ago
  Energy return in investment is <10x for solar, but more like 100x for nuclear. We have an energy budget to solver climate change. This is nothing to do with how much things cost.
  - Ghaenergyyy 2y ago
    That was not my point. A solar panel is co2 neutral after 3 years and wind in a year. And if we could build nuclear properly in a reasonable fast way around the globe, i would be for investing it heavily anyway i'm just not controling it in anyway and the only thing actually working is solar, wind and battery. Low risk, broad spectrum investment (private, small companies, big, basically everyone can)

nine_k 2y ago

> produce power at a fraction of the cost Sadly, also for a fraction of the time. Until storage is solved in a satisfactory way, solar and wind will remain auxiliary. And the capacity should be in gigawatt-days.

threeseed 2y ago
Well that fraction coincides with when demand is the highest. And storage is being solved as we have more batteries being deployed and grid supply capable EVs becoming more popular. The market is deciding where money should be allocated and it's simply not going towards nuclear.
- abfan1127 2y ago
  why would you want to share your EV battery capacity with the grid? I don't understand this. Range is entirely dictated by your EV capacity and you're going to "rent" back the capacity (and battery cycles) for night time hours? I don't understand how this would work at scale.
  - crazygringo 2y ago
    > why would you want to share your EV battery capacity with the grid? Because you'd get paid for it, and you like free money. And it should be pretty trivial to set an option to ensure you always have the necessary range for your daily commute by a little bit before you leave your home.
    - abfan1127 2y ago
      if services like Uber have shown anything, its that you can sell your vehicle's intrinsic value, depreciating it's value in the process. But will you be net positive after depreciated value?
      - crazygringo 2y ago
        Obviously almost nobody would do it if it weren't net positive. And why wouldn't it be? The whole point here is for power companies to avoid buying as many batteries themselves, and their own batteries depreciate too. This isn't hard -- the power company adjusts the price it pays minute per minute, and you set the threshold at which it is profitable for you, taking battery cycles into account. And it becomes a classic supply and demand curve -- it's Econ 101.

canadianfella 2y ago

[dead]