3 ms·

If regulations priced carbon externalities then solar would be more expensive than nuclear, but they don't. Edit: I can't reply so adding this for context arou

by m101 2y ago

If regulations priced carbon externalities then solar would be more expensive than nuclear, but they don't. Edit: I can't reply so adding this for context around my comments on carbon intensity: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_return_on_investment https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_return_on_investment

ZeroGravitas 2y ago
No it wouldn't. Even decade old solar was competitive with nuclear on a carbon per watt basis: https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy Pricing carbon would mostly drive fossil fuels from the grid (unsurprisingly). It might boost nuclear as a result but it would boost renewables far more.
- m101 2y ago
  Ultimately it's about energy return on investment. Solar + battery requires plenty of materials and energy to put together. It also needs to work in the middle of winter for it to be a fair comparison. When you consider it in that way it favours nuclear. It also has a shorter lifespan than nuclear, so that should be included. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_return_on_investment https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_return_on_investment
  - ZeroGravitas 2y ago
    Energy return on investment is pure crankery. It's a meaningless number that has basically no impact on any decision. And, if you take that crankery seriously, then renewables vastly outperform fossils and are speeding past nuclear on this metric too. It's basically impossible for energy tech to come down in price by magnitudes and not have increasing EROI as energy inputs cost money. This is predicted to continue. And despite this metric being great for renewables, you don't hear anyone crowing about it, because it's meaningless.
- lmm 2y ago
  Solar has a great price per watt as long as you don't mind getting all of your watts on some days and none on others.
  - chgs 2y ago
    Depends on your location. Alaska is somewhat different to Hawaii
IshKebab 2y ago
Probably not if you include the cost of decommissioning and dealing with nuclear waste (which is still an unsolved problem).
mltvc 2y ago
Do you have any calculations to back this up? With which carbon price is this calculated?

by m101 2y ago

ZeroGravitas 2y ago

No it wouldn't. Even decade old solar was competitive with nuclear on a carbon per watt basis: https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy Pricing carbon would mostly drive fossil fuels from the grid (unsurprisingly). It might boost nuclear as a result but it would boost renewables far more.

m101 2y ago
Ultimately it's about energy return on investment. Solar + battery requires plenty of materials and energy to put together. It also needs to work in the middle of winter for it to be a fair comparison. When you consider it in that way it favours nuclear. It also has a shorter lifespan than nuclear, so that should be included. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_return_on_investment https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_return_on_investment
- ZeroGravitas 2y ago
  Energy return on investment is pure crankery. It's a meaningless number that has basically no impact on any decision. And, if you take that crankery seriously, then renewables vastly outperform fossils and are speeding past nuclear on this metric too. It's basically impossible for energy tech to come down in price by magnitudes and not have increasing EROI as energy inputs cost money. This is predicted to continue. And despite this metric being great for renewables, you don't hear anyone crowing about it, because it's meaningless.
lmm 2y ago
Solar has a great price per watt as long as you don't mind getting all of your watts on some days and none on others.
- chgs 2y ago
  Depends on your location. Alaska is somewhat different to Hawaii

IshKebab 2y ago

Probably not if you include the cost of decommissioning and dealing with nuclear waste (which is still an unsolved problem).

mltvc 2y ago

Do you have any calculations to back this up? With which carbon price is this calculated?