Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] t1_irus5jr wrote

Reply to comment by MBlaizze in Solar Rollout Rouses Resistance in Europe’s Countryside: Regulations meant to protect green space block the installation of solar panels despite soaring energy prices by CannoliIntoPussy

There is still not enough space in Europe to cover energy needs if every aforementioned surface could be covered. Current solar is somewhere between 22-27x less space efficient than nuclear power designs from the 60s, what should of happened is nuclear power plants would’ve been built / kept operational but Europe pays the price for it now

−2

SrpskaZemlja t1_irust5z wrote

Solar is cheaper and can be expanded rapidly sooner.

25

[deleted] t1_irut27e wrote

It’s cheaper because it’s actively supported and gets money put into research. It’s competing with designs from the 1950s. Also, economical cost is not the only factor. Space is another literally highlighted by the article

−8

Icy-Confidence8018 t1_irvge1s wrote

Oof. You’re right. I hate public perception of nuclear power. It’s such a glaring solution to power production issues. Especially with mainstream support for tech breakthroughs possibly making it smaller and safer.

3

Guerriky t1_irx2am9 wrote

Nuclear is also a lot more infrastructure demanding, a lot slower to render operational, and a lot more difficult to get the fuel for.

Solar can be scaled up in months, nuclear takes years for a single reactor.

Also, nuclear produces power all the time, but energy demand peaks during the day, when factories and construction sites open.

Also, nuclear is very centralized, which means that any time maintenance is required, power has to be accumulated or generated by other fossil fuels.

Also, nuclear "fuel" has to be mined and processed. It depends on it to run, and so would your economy.

3

[deleted] t1_irx7sgs wrote

You think absolutely none of these issues mentioned could’ve been solved if we put money into developing new nuclear technologies? Making them smaller would address most of these issues. Solar from the 90s is a fair comparison to nuclear as the technology has not advanced at all due to political factors.

Also to your 4th point… this is the very same issue with solar as well. Half the time the sun isn’t there so you need to either build batteries or…. Supplement with a different source of power. Additionally, using both solar and nuclear are not mutually exclusive, not sure why you view it this way

0

Guerriky t1_iry1h5d wrote

Because nuclear requires enormous initial investment, it's slow to deploy, tricky to distribute, not easily scalable, still needs to be accumulated (because of too much power, rather than too little), still relies on the economics of a fuel.

If we invest heavily in nuclear what we could invest on renewables, we would reap the profits in twenty years.

And we can't make small reactors; for one, because tech isn't ready yet (despite recent Chinese investments), but also because... Who'd want them in their yards?

Also, since you mentioned it... You'd be amazed how little we progressed in renewable tech in the last 20 years, especially solar... We really sat on our comfy gas for a long time, you know... No real incentives...

2