First U.S. nuclear reactor built from scratch in decades enters commercial operation in Georgia::ATLANTA — A new reactor at a nuclear power plant in Georgia has entered commercial operation, becoming the first new American reactor built from scratch in decades.

  • ephemeral_gibbon
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The footprint of solar is significant, but still nothing compared to agriculture. E.g. The area used to grow corn to make ethanol in the US is ~ 3x what you’d need to fully power the US on solar.

    ~96000000 acres used for corn, ~40% of that is used for ethanol. That makes 38.3e6 acres. First estimate I found for area of solar panels to fully power the US on solar alone was 14.08e6. That makes corn for ethanol 2.7 times the area of solar panels if all that was used was solar.

    • UnPassive@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah agriculture isn’t great for the environment either, but that doesn’t actually make solar any better

      • ephemeral_gibbon
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        But what I’m saying is that the land used by solar isn’t all that significant, and it’s also costed into the price of solar farms. To power the US purely off solar would require significantly less land than is currently used for ethanol production alone. I’d say the environmental good of solar (cheap, renewable power) significantly outweighs the cost of it.

        For the transition off fossil fuels to happen quickly it needs to be economic, and solar is a big part of making it economic. Nuclear is just too expensive

        • UnPassive@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I guess it depends on perspective. On one hand, it’s an enormous amount of land - on the other hand, the USA is extremely big. I personally think the footprint is significant. It’s not like we’d tear down suberbs to make solar farms, we’d tear down nature (undeveloped land).

          The cost being the motivator that makes solar better than nuclear I don’t believe to be accurate. Short term, solar is cheaper, but also we’re making panels as fast as we can. It takes a lot of materials and is hard to scale quickly, so we can’t just decide we want to switch the USA to solar and think we’ll have enough panels in a decade even.

          Additionally, nuclear isn’t expensive in the long run. It’s quite profitable and low maintenance. Nuclear waste is blown up by people who don’t understand it. And our grid is ready to be powered by nuclear. Our grid can’t yet handle the quick variablility of solar. If that weren’t a problem, we still need additional power from events where there isn’t a lot of sun for a while. Batteries may get us through the night someday (also another enormous manufacturing feat) but they won’t get us through the week.

          If both can be profitable, it’s really a question of what we want to build. I argue that we can’t even run off solar yet without some new technologies being made. Nuclear is the quick fix we need. The only reason we don’t have it already is because of attitude towards it (“not in my backyard”), which I think would be different if people understood it.

          • ephemeral_gibbon
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The lifetime cost of of nuclear (build, running + clean-up) divided by the amount of electricity created is incredibly high. This report from csiro doesn’t include large scale nuclear but does include projected costs for small modular reactors +solar and wind. Generally large reactors come out behind smr especially in future projections.

            https://www.csiro.au/en/research/technology-space/energy/energy-data-modelling/gencost

            Note the “wind and solar pv combined” “variable with integration costs” which is the cost accounting for storage, transmission etc. It’s not that high (at least up to the 90% of the grid modelled for 2030). The best end of the nuclear estimate is double the cost of that. The reasons that the storage costs etc. Are not as high as you may intuitively expect are explained in that report.

            Maybe there is a place for nuclear in that last 10%, but not in less than that. Also as far as rolling it out quickly, look at how long this last nuclear plant took to build from planning to construction being complete.

            I think that it is possible to manage the cleanup of nuclear and to make it safe, but it’s all just very expensive. To make everyone happy with the transition off fossil fuels it needs to be cost competitive and renewables are, nuclear isn’t.

            • UnPassive@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Maybe Australia’s grid is 90% ready for solar, I’ve heard they’re pushing for full renewable in 2 States. But the USA’s isn’t ready.

              Again, I understand that new installations of solar power plants are cheaper than nuclear. My points against solar are:

              • its footprint (solar farms outside every town/city)
              • its lack of power generation during night (batteries aren’t cheap and don’t last long, new tech will help but doesn’t exist yet)
              • how quickly output changes due to weather. This is extremely hard for the grid to adjust to. The best solution is filling gaps with natural gas (methane) because it starts up fast. Methane is a potent greenhosue gas and it’s supply chain is extremely leaky so that stinks.

              Meanwhile points agaisnt nuclear are

              • cost
              • waste

              Both of which seem like much simpler problems to solve:

              • subsidize (like renewables)
              • store on site, reprocess, or build a storage facility (last point being expensive, but solving the problem completely). Reprocessing is my favorite choice.
              • ephemeral_gibbon
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Australia’s grid isn’t fully ready for renewables, but accounting for that cost they’re still cheaper than any other energy generation. Also as for your “need a lot of storage” comment, the reason solar + wind with integration costs is still relatively cheap is that you really don’t need much when it’s modelled as a full solution. Quite conveniently, wind produces more power at night and nicely compliments solar.

                The footprint of solar also isn’t that big. I did a little maths in some other coment, and to power the US off solar alone (not solar + wind) would take a bit over a third the land used to grow corn for ethanol in the US. That land cost is also included in the cost of generation, so it doesn’t make solar uneconomic.

                Yes there are difficulties, but they’re cheaper to solve than it is to make a safe nuclear reactor.