3 ms·
> Nuclear electricity generation has been only 33% efficient (and no imminent breakthroughs are expected). This is a good example of the pointless numerology d
by ZeroGravitas 1y ago
> Nuclear electricity generation has been only 33% efficient (and no imminent breakthroughs are expected).
This is a good example of the pointless numerology deployed against renewables by people like Smil, because he's doing it to nuclear here.
What does this number mean in real life? Basically nothing. Why is he bringing it up then?. Because it sounds like a low number.
Most of the numbers he uses are used because they sound like a big number. That's the level of debate he's aiming for.
- pjc50 1y agoIndeed. I didn't read the whole thing but presumably that's Carnot efficiency of the nuclear reactor as heat engine? In which case .. who cares? The important factors are "is there going to be sufficient fuel?" (insert argument about breeder reactors), "is it cost (money or resource) effective", and "is the proliferation risk important". By comparison, the increase in power/area efficiency of solar panels is useful but not very significant either; again, the critical factor is the cost falling by several orders of magnitude in the past decades.
- kristianp 1y agoI think you've pointed the one number that didn't make a substantive argument towards his thesis. The rest of the article is much more persuasive and uses facts that are more relevant.