I you live where sun is abundant all year round… In which case (Las Vegas?) I would question the choice of having humans living in a fucking desert in the first place. But man I wish I could cover my needs between October and March here in Europe but no battery will help me store so much for so long

They modelled it for other places too.

This is still more polluting to mine than going nuclear, even accounting for nuclear waste.

Do you have a source for that claim? Genuine question.

My intuition is that the types of impact are widely different, so hard to reduce to a single number that can be compared.

He is probably referring to the small amount of nuclear waste that is actually produced per watt of power, it is a lot more dangerous if you are in direct contact, but it is surprisingly easy to store safely, and remove all environmental impact. The biggest environmental issue with nuclear is the mining and enriching, both of which are realistically too small to factor in.

I found this article going into more depth nuclear waste .

shhh!

how can we develop a whole new market to make the rich richer if you keep bringing those kinds of facts in here?

Yeah I saw that… Though I’m 3 years into solar and my measurements aren’t so positive. I am definitely not covering 62% of our needs yearly. The 4 less sunny months are killers when you need heating.

https://docs.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/80580.pdf

I'm using table 1.

PV panels alone produce 43g/kWh, batteries 33.

Nuclear (light-water or pressurized) are at 12.

We're talking complete life cycle analyses.

97% sounds impressive, but thats equivalent to almost an hour of blackout every day. Developed societies demand +99.99% availability from their grids.

To tack onto that: https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-per-energy-source

When you account for land use in the entire life cycle from mining resources to disposal at end of life cycle, nuclear uses a quarter of the land of rooftop cadmium panels and a tenth of silicon panels.

Offshore wind is the only thing that gets close and even that has ecological and commercial concerns.

If you're pro-stable and sustainable ecological systems, nuclear based power grid is a no brainer.

Coal has long been unprofitable, and nuclear has always needed huge state funding (you get weapons as the byproduct of nuclear power, hence the subsidies). Until it beats gas it still isn't cheap enough imo. Gas of course is still massively subsidised too though, and that's where we need to continue to work: our policy makers need to end fossil fuel subsidies

Then get it from the sources that already exist. 97% coverage is a great milestone.

What's the power source that doesn't do that? How do I advocate for it?

Even for offshore wind, you gotta add the necessary battery capacity for a reliable power grid...

The point is if 97% of the energy is cheaper... Then you would have to pay more than coal for 3%. Which you could use any other form to supplement that, or just pay more for that 3% as the prices keep dropping and it will be below it soon. Countries use more than one source of energy. Whether you use a nuclear plant, hydro, geothermal, wind, or even gas/coal to supplement that 3% until it becomes cheaper (likely in the next 3 years).. and then we'll just burn off the extra energy in useful tasks hopefully. You could do anything with it. Shit hook it up the pumps and lift water up into towers and tell people if we have to much energy we need to burn off you'll get extra water pressure for your showers or something. Use it for desalinization of saltwater to send to areas in a drought. Can power the shipping to get it there as well. Idk, there's always something useful we need energy for.

(Note those numbers were just for Vegas though, so it could be 20% your trying to supplement for now)

97% is great (though that is just for vegas) but it is still a long way from enough. Its a truism of availability that each 9 of uptime is more difficult to get to than the last, i.e. 99.9% is significantly more difficult/expensive than 99%

Then get it from the sources that already exist.

The problem here is that you cant simultaneously say "Solar is so much better than everything else we should just build it" and "we'll just use other sources to cover the gaps". Either you calculate the costs needed to get solar up to very high availability or you advocate for mixed generation.

None of which is to say that solar shouldnt be deployed at scale, it should. We should be aware of its limitations howver and not fall prey to hype.

Firewood from your own forest is the only one and it's carbon neutral too. This is meant more as a joke but still.

I wanted to make a joke about plug flow electricity because your in the UK I believe from what you said, but I don't know enough about it. Doesn't sound like it could supplement much energy in its current stages. I am curious to see if it ever makes any substantial amount in the next 10 years. (Right now it's so early they are talking only about a few LEDs sort of electricity)

If you haven't heard of it, it is a process of maximizing the use of air pockets created in catching falling water (rain) and allowing it to split in a way that can convert the kinetic energy of it essentially to about 10% electrical energy. Supposedily about 5x as effective as just letting the water fall on its own and turning it to mechanical energy. There's something about it that seems whimsical about it to me. Not sure why.

Look at the other line on the graph. Solar alone, covering up to 60% of energy use, is already cheaper than gas in Las Vegas. Sure, other places will have their own lower numbers, but until we achieve this threshold, we’re just a bunch of reactionaries captured by current business owners. If anyone actually believed in the free market, we’d expect it to trend to that line