←back to thread

1041 points mpweiher | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
m101 ◴[] No.45230060[source]
I think a good exercise for the reader is to reflect on why they were ever against nuclear power in the first place. Nuclear power was always the greenest, most climate friendly, safest, cheapest (save for what we do to ourselves), most energy dense, most long lasting, option.
replies(25): >>45230185 #>>45230223 #>>45230479 #>>45230658 #>>45230757 #>>45231144 #>>45231518 #>>45231738 #>>45232518 #>>45232615 #>>45232756 #>>45232757 #>>45232937 #>>45233169 #>>45233513 #>>45233762 #>>45233817 #>>45233825 #>>45234181 #>>45234637 #>>45234828 #>>45235394 #>>45238856 #>>45240108 #>>45243016 #
kolinko ◴[] No.45230658[source]
So far it was either the cheapest or the safest.

Also, solar is now both cheaper and safer.

replies(5): >>45230728 #>>45231404 #>>45231544 #>>45231632 #>>45237449 #
pzo ◴[] No.45230728[source]
but it's not 24/7 and europe even worse in winter and fall. Solar is unrealistic to replace most energy usage [1]. In EU it's just less than 5% usage. In germany less than 6% usage. And wind is not a replacement either (less than 11% energy usage in germany).

And just for comparison in france nuclear power plants provides 37% of energy

[1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-consumption-by-sou...

replies(6): >>45230861 #>>45231238 #>>45231374 #>>45231542 #>>45231627 #>>45233578 #
ZeroGravitas ◴[] No.45231238[source]
60% of that energy is lost as waste heat and doesn't need replaced as we decarbonise and electrify.

For already developed nations predictions are for electricity to double but energy use to halve at the same time as they electrify end uses.

replies(1): >>45231570 #
pzo ◴[] No.45231570{3}[source]
Not everybody live in house and have enough rooftop area. In Europe majority people live in apartments. If you want to have wind warm and solar farm there is also energy wasted with power lines transmission. Energy powerbanks also have energy waste.

I'm all in to have energy mix and more people to have solar panels if they can but it's not a holly grail

replies(3): >>45232409 #>>45233595 #>>45234851 #
1. Heliosmaster ◴[] No.45232409{4}[source]
Apart from cities with crazy density, you underestimate how much solar we could put in the city outskirts, and it would be fine. We have already the power lines anyway to bring electricity from power plants that are far from those apartments you mention.
replies(1): >>45233376 #
2. pzo ◴[] No.45233376[source]
You would have to either cut forrest and trees or remove farm fields. I'm looking at my home town and I really don't see any barren land around many cities in Poland. I would rather they use those city outskirts land for new real estate that is lacking to deflate the bubble.
replies(1): >>45236380 #
3. biaachmonkie ◴[] No.45236380[source]
Building roofs, parking lots, streets, rail tracks, etc.. are all spaces that could have a canopy installed overhead and solar panels providing power and shading. As solar panels continue to lower in cost the sides of buildings, fences, etc.. There are lots of opportunities to install solar panels in a crowded city.
replies(1): >>45238486 #
4. pzo ◴[] No.45238486{3}[source]
maintaining such infrastructure would be really costly: installing extra canopy, cleaning, removing snow (not easily accessible), extra inverters. I think solar only make sense if it's installed as solar farm (easy to maintain by one company) or in residential houses (owner maintain) or commercial units (owner maintain it). Solar prices went down but cost of installation and maintaining not much - this is the reason why many people in my family didn't buy it since it's still big investment and maintenance burden currently not worth the effort unless you are building new house.