3 ms·
It’s an inefficient way of producing energy. Only 30-35% results in electricity
by croes 10mo ago
It’s an inefficient way of producing energy. Only 30-35% results in electricity
- ethmarks 10mo agoWhat alternative do you propose that's more efficient?
- graeme 10mo agoCould you please provide comparable figured of EROI for solar vs Nuclear? For a useful comparison you have to compare both sides, not give a stat in isolation and assert it is worse without comparing.
- ai_critic 10mo agoIf you believe that figure, that's still comparable to solar's best ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar-cell_efficiency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar-cell_efficiency ). Optimal steam plants can get do better, exceeding 50% in some configurations ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined-cycle_power_plant#Efficiency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined-cycle_power_plant#Eff... ). Steam is awesome.
- _aavaa_ 10mo agoThe difference that makes your statement misleading is that solar doesn’t pay for its fuel, the sun shines for free.
- fc417fc802 10mo ago30-35% of what? What are the inputs here? What is driving the cost? What are the externalities? And what is the end result in price per kWh?