Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

CuriousSequoia t1_ixwuzjj wrote

Just go nuclear

−4

Iazo t1_ixxjbfx wrote

Still need both. It's not either-or.

12

raygundan t1_ixx18h0 wrote

I guess if your goal is to pay many times as much for the same amount of energy, sure... it's pretty "green" when the waste is handled well, it's just suuuuper expensive compared to solar right now.

6

BLSmith2112 t1_ixx6rzc wrote

If you had a field of these 26.81% efficient solar panels in the same footprint of a nuclear power plant (including all off limit areas and borders), this would generate the same amount of electricity. Throw some batteries in there and you've got yourself a much better system in that you don't need to wait 10 years to put it up.

5

lease1982 t1_ixxktik wrote

And they can also be distributed directly to the energy consumer much easier than nuclear can. A huge benefit for home and business self reliability and grid reliability.

6

Majik_Sheff t1_ixy20xp wrote

I thought the turnaround on a new nuclear plant from approval to lights-on was around 30 years. Am I way off here?

6

danielravennest t1_ixyop61 wrote

The Vogtle Units 3 & 4 reactors in Georgia, the only ones still under construction, started construction on 22 June 2009. They are both planned to start operating next year. #3 has been fueled, but still doing tests before ramping up to full power.

4

iLikeMeeces t1_ixy7mam wrote

What?! That is completely untrue.

For a solar farm to equal a nuclear reactor's output (let's say 1000MW) it would require about 40 square miles of land. A nuclear facility requires about 1.5 to 2 for that same output.

4

Tomcatjones t1_ixy9u6a wrote

First of all… your figures are incorrect lol

but you are right the size isn’t the same.

The largest solar park is 21 square miles. And it produces 2.5 GW

1

7734128 t1_ixyawu1 wrote

There's a greater difference than that. Not that it matters that much, as we have quite a lot of dessert and wasteland globally.

A 2.5 GW solar plant would in reality average between 0.25 and 0.5 GW due to limited capacity factor. A nuclear power plant usually also use multiple reactors, with only limited increase in size.

3

BasvanS t1_ixzs6tf wrote

A power plant can’t be built on rooftops. Rooftops also have less inefficiency from grid transmissions. HEMS however have lower efficiency when battery power is used. Nuclear power plants are open to attacks. So is the software of inverters. It’s a messy calculation, but below the line to me the decentralized solution, with solar energy generated close to where it’s used and excesses stored in EVs is the winning combo.

0

ukezi t1_ixydbun wrote

That is 2.5 GW peak, average will be a lot lower.

3

Tomcatjones t1_ixye4sh wrote

732,874mwh per year

Which is 2000 per day

Pretty damn good. 3.1cents per kWh in 2020

1

tdrhq t1_ixyqi9o wrote

Oh cool, which brand of nuclear do you suggest for my rooftop?

3

ISAMU13 t1_ixx0jsc wrote

Some people that want their investment to pay back within a decade.

0

cwesttheperson t1_ixxdj5g wrote

Nuclear is the single best option. Still fascinating people argue against it.

There has even constrictive conversation on this but the point stands. Too much of the anti nuclear is talking points trying to weigh pros and cons but it’s clear the picture of nuclear vs. wind and solar is still muddled. Nuclear is the best option, tons of research and information, it’s still pointless trying to deny it, it all leads back.

0

electric_creamsicle t1_ixxjxci wrote

There's no single best option. They all have upsides and downsides and it's dumb to try and say we should fully commit to any one kind of alternative energy.

Solar and wind don't offer a reliable energy source and require some kind of battery infrastructure to power a grid if there's enough volume to provide enough power to the grid on average.

Nuclear can provide steady energy as the grid requires but has huge overhead in terms of start-up costs. There's also the problem of disposal of waste but I think that's less of a problem.

If we were forward looking enough, we would be building enough nuclear plants to phase out coal and natural gas for energy production in the grid while also building solar and wind to cover the increase in energy usage year after year. That way there's no need to increase coal/natural gas output and they become obsolete once the nuclear plants are built. There's a more nuanced approach where the government heavily subsidizes (more than they have) solar panels so land owners build them on their property that they're not using for things like food anyway and keep energy production as local as possible.

24

LivingReaper t1_ixxqya3 wrote

Modern reactors use the fuel almost to completion. Smaller amounts of waste and less toxic waste that is safe after a few hundred years.

4

uhhNo t1_ixxsoup wrote

In a decade, nuclear will be 3x more expensive per unit of energy than wind and solar.

Nuclear is only good up to the baseload of the grid. For the rest, wind, solar, and storage will be more economical while still being reliable.

3

ttux t1_ixydm51 wrote

But your baseload has to be the same as your entire solar + wind production until electricity storage has been solved so why build both solution when you can build only one. I say this often but Germany spent 600 billion euros on wind and solar since 2000. They would have spent this on building nuclear plants and not closing the ones they already had and would have 100% co2 free and cheapest electricity on the planet. There is a difference between theory and practice. Now we are screwed because we lack energy and building nuclear plants will take minimum 10 years so in the mean time we burn gas and coal for baseload and add more solar/wind. At 40% renewables, 11% nuclear and the rest fossil. And that's just for electricity. So optimistically another 800-1000 billion euros to go? Then 2 times that to replace use of fossil fuel beyond electricity?

source: https://www.aicgs.org/2021/09/germany-has-a-math-problem-and-its-about-to-get-worse/

4

uhhNo t1_iy2cvb4 wrote

All the money spent developing wind and solar should be looked at as an investment for humanity. Wind and solar prices dropped by so much for the entire world. Massive benefit for reducing global emissions.

Wind, solar, and batteries are already the best option for peaking load, but currently providing baseload energy this way is too expensive.

There will still be a huge baseload energy need so it would still make sense to add much more nuclear.

1

napoleon_wang t1_ixwwg0p wrote

Only if everyone can keep the toxic waste in your bedroom.

−6

Plzbanmebrony t1_ixwyayz wrote

The volume of waste is basically nothing.

12

lucimon97 t1_ixx4g86 wrote

Your bedroom then?

0

Plzbanmebrony t1_ixx4tyg wrote

Well if you reduce it to only the longest lasting elements and don't care about heat then yes it would fit.

2

CuriousSequoia t1_ixxzu26 wrote

Why would you want to dump nuclear waste into your mom’s bedroom?

1