3 ms·
Interior cancels largest solar project in North America
- camillomiller 1y ago[dead]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- nextworddev 1y ago[flagged]
- bryanlarsen 1y agoThe ~20 year delay it would take to replace that 6.2 GW with nuclear would cause the emission of 20 years * 6.2 GW * 3000 GWh / GW / year * 367 tons / GWh = 136.5 million tons of CO2.
- nextworddev 1y agoThat’s why we have SMRs
- 3eb7988a1663 1y agoWith zero SMRs having ever been commercially deployed in the US, that is as much a pipe-dream as a traditional nuclear plant.
- nextworddev 1y agoWhy ever try building new things with that mindset?
- n8cpdx 1y agoPerhaps we should try building solar panels and energy storage instead. New is good, known is better when you need to act with urgency to <fuel next generation AI/avert the climate crisis >.
- nextworddev 1y agoAnd no, solving that with solar panels with lithium batteries isn’t the answer.
- platevoltage 1y agoThe dominate battery technology has changed several times in my lifetime. We just have to wait for someone else to invent a new battery chemistry since the USA has tapped out on renewables.
- nextworddev 1y agoSounds like smr is the answer
- bryanlarsen 1y agoWe might have 600MW of SMR's within a decade, but we're highly unlikely to have 6GW. So 20 years is about right, SMR or conventional. They might come faster after that, or not.
- rootusrootus 1y agoThe pro-nuclear environmentalists seem so rare but always come out in force in discussions like this. Given the odd combination and reliable timing, if I were more cynical I would think it is not a good faith position.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- nextworddev 1y agoLoving the cynicism. Just proves we are early in the nuclear energy transition.
- rootusrootus 1y agoAs a former nuclear enthusiast, I would say we are at the end. Until something really significant changes, nuclear has no future. Figure out how to make it less bespoke and much cheaper. Failing that, batteries and sunlight (including in wind form) are looking like a much safer bet.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- feyman_r 1y ago63000 acres is about 98 square miles, so about a 10 mile by 10 mile area. Pretty sure this isn't 'destroying wildlife' levels of destruction, but yes, definitely ecosystem influencing. Compared to current alternatives (gas/coal/hydro), this may have less impact overall. Nuclear power should be invested in, but may take more time.
- 3eb7988a1663 1y agoCome on now, Nevada is only 110,000 square miles. This solar planet would have taken up 0.089% of the state. All for a power plant that would have to be torn up in as little as 25 years. Ecological disaster averted.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- ClownsAbound 1y ago[dead]
- ChrisArchitect 1y ago[dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45553487 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45553487
- tomhow 1y agoComments moved thither. Thanks!