Elon Musk's Plan to Power the US on Solar Energy

Uvaman2 said:
I know! I very much prefer the can't do United States I've grown to loooooooove with all my heart.
Click to expand...

We can just use than can do attitude to magically create a few quadrillion dollars out of thin air.

Can do attitudes are fine. At least ground them in reality. Just because some billionaire solar panel salesman told you all it would take is 100 miles x 100 miles does not make it easy or even possible in the near future, especially when he's relying on people not doing math.
 
SilverSliver said:
especially when he's relying on people not doing math.
Click to expand...
Costs for PVC solar are well known and dropping all the time though, its already at the point where its becoming cost competitve with coal and will be cheaper in a year or 2 if current pricing trends continue. The batteries still cost too much but practical improvements are finally happening there too.

You can keep your head in the sand and wallow in denial all you like on this issue but solar plants are going to keep getting built while coal plants keep getting closed as they make less and less financial sense.
 
mesyn191 said:
Costs for PVC solar are well known and dropping all the time though, its already at the point where its becoming cost competitve with coal and will be cheaper in a year or 2 if current pricing trends continue. The batteries still cost too much but practical improvements are finally happening there too.

You can keep your head in the sand and wallow in denial all you like on this issue but solar plants are going to keep getting built while coal plants keep getting closed as they make less and less financial sense.
Click to expand...
I agree.. just to add..
Of couse Elon wants to sell you li ion batteries.. that is his job.. but they are far from the only type that would work, ( nife, aquaion at least) and not the only infrastructure type either. ( Pumped water, what have you).. We certainly can do more way way way more as a nation... We just seem eager to wait until is not a matter of choice, and we will have to buy EVERYTHING from China i guess.
 
SilverSliver said:
We can just use than can do attitude to magically create a few quadrillion dollars out of thin air.

Can do attitudes are fine. At least ground them in reality. Just because some billionaire solar panel salesman told you all it would take is 100 miles x 100 miles does not make it easy or even possible in the near future, especially when he's relying on people not doing math.
Click to expand...
I don't know anything about quatrillion dollar of what have you, but what is cost?
What is cost in a fiat-currency economy.. I mean I am serious, what is 'cost'?
Why would 'cost' ever be a deterrent to 'do' anything?
Cost is a measure of economic activity, that is all.. 'at current prices' it would include current inefficiencies, that is all.
Anything is doable, if there is no hard limit in materials (man power is rarely an issue, really, only when you don't want to you know 'pay')
'Cost' as a preventive of action, is introduced to us peons by those controlling 'the money',
since whatever they see as an issue of 'cost' is more likely an issue of a lack of definition of who controls it, hence..: oh no, it costs too much.
 
mesyn191 said:
Costs for PVC solar are well known and dropping all the time though, its already at the point where its becoming cost competitve with coal and will be cheaper in a year or 2 if current pricing trends continue. The batteries still cost too much but practical improvements are finally happening there too.

You can keep your head in the sand and wallow in denial all you like on this issue but solar plants are going to keep getting built while coal plants keep getting closed as they make less and less financial sense.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about batteries. 45.5 TWh of battery storage, at today's prices, is 5.6 QUADRILLION DOLLARS. The entire net worth of the fuckin planet is 256 trillion. Do you even understand these numbers? You can't just abstractly say 'well, what is cost really' and wave your hands about like it's just a number that obfuscates the glory of the proletariat or something. And please, do try the kinetic storage mathematics involving even 1 terawatt of energy, pumped water isn't going to do shit, especially in the desert, really your only option is some sort of molten system that drives turbines which is doable but again - scales. These are building projects that exceed anything humanity has ever done by several magnitudes.

Battery tech has, essentially, been cut in half price wise since 2013. Let's say you get a 50% reduction in price every 3 years, this results in 66 years until the price breaks even with present day net worth of the entire planet.

I'm not saying we won't get there. Battery and PV are tracking Moore's Law very nicely. But to be outraged today that we have not already started this is pure looney toons.
 
mesyn191 said:
Unfortunately yeah. Even the smaller and more practical 20MW facilities have all sorts of problems just trying to consistently break even. Its why Beacon has already gone under once, resurfaced and has been struggling along for years. Its just piss poor at scaling up. I can't imagine it working at all for 1TW+ of storage capacity.
Click to expand...

Are you talking flywheels? I was talking pumped hydro as I mentioned in a previous post.....they already have gigawatt hydro installs across the country.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pumped-storage_hydroelectric_power_stations
 
SilverSliver said:
Gigawatts ain't shit compared to Terawatts. We are talking a scale that is difficult to fathom for a single source PV energy storage facility.
Click to expand...

I was curious why Tesla’s stock is so overvalued, this thread helped me understand why. I wouldn’t waste anymore time here. These folks are not interested in any calculations, but would rather just believe everything Musk says.
 
SilverSliver said:
Gigawatts ain't shit compared to Terawatts. We are talking a scale that is difficult to fathom for a single source PV energy storage facility.
Click to expand...

Considering the largest battery in the world is only about 40mw, I'd say gigawatts is pretty good.

No one is actually trying to say 'this one thing will store all the energy from a 100sq mile solar array'. It would take many different installations.
 
-Strelok- said:
I was curious why Tesla’s stock is so overvalued, this thread helped me understand why. I wouldn’t waste anymore time here. These folks are not interested in any calculations, but would rather just believe everything Musk says.
Click to expand...

Step 1) Make claims to power the country with solar

Step 2)

Step 3) Profit
 
-Strelok- said:
I was curious why Tesla’s stock is so overvalued, this thread helped me understand why. I wouldn’t waste anymore time here. These folks are not interested in any calculations, but would rather just believe everything Musk says.
Click to expand...
What calculations? Here's calculations that says how much area is needed to make the power the US uses.. Done. No one ever said it would be cheap.

However in a truly RTFA moment that many people (I'm guilty of this too at times) overlook is that he's not saying you need to build a 10,000 square mile solar power plant, he's just saying how much total area is needed. He does in fact say that power sources need to be localized, and he deals with the idea of storage when the Sun isn't up, and he talks about what sort of transition is needed.

Now is he doing this as a business pitch? Maybe, I mean I'm sure various leaders asked him what it would take and he simply came up with the "this is what it would take" solution. But he's really not doing anything different than what the oil industry has done with with it's commercials to let you know oil is good, or what the coal industry has done promoting "clean coal" or what T. Boone Pickens was doing with trying to push natural gas down everyone's throat say it's the future... whoops forgot to mention I own a crap ton of natural gas facilities.
 
Uvaman2 said:
Of couse Elon wants to sell you li ion batteries.. that is his job.. but they are far from the only type that would work,
Click to expand...
Oh yes absolutely. I would point out the battery tech I've been mentioning hasn't been stuff Musk produces.

SilverSliver said:
I'm talking about batteries.
Click to expand...
Why though? Do you think they need to have all the power necessary stored from the get go? They could build out all the solar PVC panels and scale up the batteries over a period of years, taking advantage of cost reductions along the way as the tech improves. This only seems to be a show stopper to you because you either lack imagination or have no clue how extremely expensive large infrastructure projects tend to get done. I'm not saying I'm a expert here but just look at the history of nuclear plant development and implementation, or heck even stuff like the Hoover Dam.

SilverSliver said:
Battery tech has, essentially, been cut in half price wise since 2013.
Click to expand...
Backwards looking projections that only include existing battery tech can't account for the new tech. That is why stuff like sulfur and vanadium batteries keeps getting brought up in thread. They're WAY cheaper to implement than lithium or lead acid and can be scaled up dramatically.

SilverSliver said:
Battery and PV are tracking Moore's Law very nicely.
Click to expand...
Huuuuh?? Moore's Law and batteries have nothing in common, conflating the 2 as a predictor of future battery tech improvements makes no sense at all.

Eickst said:
Are you talking flywheels? I was talking pumped hydro
Click to expand...
Kinetic storage usually means flywheels though. Pumped hydro is pretty specific. That can scale up but it can't be implemented in most areas. Its heavily dependent on local geography and water supply, so its cool if you can pull it off but I wouldn't look to it as a general solution.
 
sfsuphysics said:
What calculations? Here's calculations that says how much area is needed to make the power the US uses.. Done. No one ever said it would be cheap.

However in a truly RTFA moment that many people (I'm guilty of this too at times) overlook is that he's not saying you need to build a 10,000 square mile solar power plant, he's just saying how much total area is needed. He does in fact say that power sources need to be localized, and he deals with the idea of storage when the Sun isn't up, and he talks about what sort of transition is needed.

Now is he doing this as a business pitch? Maybe, I mean I'm sure various leaders asked him what it would take and he simply came up with the "this is what it would take" solution. But he's really not doing anything different than what the oil industry has done with with it's commercials to let you know oil is good, or what the coal industry has done promoting "clean coal" or what T. Boone Pickens was doing with trying to push natural gas down everyone's throat say it's the future... whoops forgot to mention I own a crap ton of natural gas facilities.
Click to expand...

You would destroy the entire country if you just installed PV's right now. They generate power when you don't need it (midday when most people are at work) and have nothing left at night. The PV's aren't the real issue, even though they are still very expensive without all the government subsidies. Batteries are the issue, since battery tech hasn't progressed enough yet.

Btw I agree that PV's are useful in the future and that it is much better to have them spread out rather than the single gigantic power plants we have now, but we aren't at the point where you can just mindlessly install them everywhere. Again, check out Hawaii and how much fun they are having with their shitty power grid. California is starting to notice the same issues, heck they are trying to add an electric vehicle tax.
 
mesyn191 said:
You can't claim it doesn't work at all if you don't know a thing about it.

At least not reasonably. Good job also on not reading the already linked in thread information on the vanadium flow batteries too but still somehow coming to the conclusion they don't work or something.


While settle for shit if you can get something better? Whatever happened to good stewardship of national health and economic resources by solving problems BEFORE they become problems to begin with by being proactive?? Even if it costs more in the short term in the long run developments will defray costs and it'll only get more practical over time.
Click to expand...

https://www.omicsonline.com/open-ac...ium-fuel-cell-2090-4568-1000140.php?aid=65007

$360/kWh. Unless the math is wrong (4000 TWh = 4000*10^12 kWh * 360 = ~$1.4*10^15), that isn't feasible. Sure you can cut that storage down and somehow find alternative ways to deal with it, but it's not going to be cheap either way. By the way, nobody is saying to stop researching this kind of tech or to ditch renewables. It's just that it isn't going to happen within the next few years because the economics just aren't there to support it.
 
mesyn191 said:
Oh yes absolutely. I would point out the battery tech I've been mentioning hasn't been stuff Musk produces.


Why though? Do you think they need to have all the power necessary stored from the get go? They could build out all the solar PVC panels and scale up the batteries over a period of years, taking advantage of cost reductions along the way as the tech improves. This only seems to be a show stopper to you because you either lack imagination or have no clue how extremely expensive large infrastructure projects tend to get done. I'm not saying I'm a expert here but just look at the history of nuclear plant development and implementation, or heck even stuff like the Hoover Dam.


Backwards looking projections that only include existing battery tech can't account for the new tech. That is why stuff like sulfur and vanadium batteries keeps getting brought up in thread. They're WAY cheaper to implement than lithium or lead acid and can be scaled up dramatically.


Huuuuh?? Moore's Law and batteries have nothing in common, conflating the 2 as a predictor of future battery tech improvements makes no sense at all.


Kinetic storage usually means flywheels though. Pumped hydro is pretty specific. That can scale up but it can't be implemented in most areas. Its heavily dependent on local geography and water supply, so its cool if you can pull it off but I wouldn't look to it as a general solution.
Click to expand...

Obviously, you are an expert. Have fun with your millions of dollars. Let me know when the check clears and I'll raise you a glass.
 
-Strelok- said:
You would destroy the entire country if you just installed PV's right now. They generate power when you don't need it (midday when most people are at work) and have nothing left at night. The PV's aren't the real issue, even though they are still very expensive without all the government subsidies. Batteries are the issue, since battery tech hasn't progressed enough yet.
Click to expand...
Destroy is a rather strong word to use. After all current won't flow unless there is somewhere to go, a PV panel sitting in the sun not hooked up to any wiring doesn't heat up from excess current or anything, and much like one hooked up to the power grid if there's not adequate load on the grid then PV panels won't push current. But I agree, the time when you use power is critical. Musk does talk about batteries in his talk though, and he does talk about a transition process to being full solar. He in no way is suggesting "Yup just write me a blank check, I'll build a solar farm and you can stop using coal tomorrow"

Btw I agree that PV's are useful in the future and that it is much better to have them spread out rather than the single gigantic power plants we have now, but we aren't at the point where you can just mindlessly install them everywhere. Again, check out Hawaii and how much fun they are having with their shitty power grid. California is starting to notice the same issues, heck they are trying to add an electric vehicle tax.
Click to expand...
I can't speak for Hawaii, but I can hazard a guess it's a lot like California in that they simply have too many fucking people with not enough infrastructure, plus Hawaii gets double whammied because they have an absolutely HUGE tourist population compared to their local population that probably has the AC in their rooms cranking on full from check in to check out, because by in far people are pussies.

California is in a similar issue, 25 years and the population increased 50%, and this was from an already large population base. And once again with the "people are pussies" theory, everyone has their AC units going because they figure that living in a desert region should be normal (lets not even talk about water with that regard!) , but the infrastructure is simply not there, that's why Enron managed to anally rape California and was the reason for the Governator. So when you have these southern California suburban sprawl, or SF Bay area sprawl (which guess what is not in the cooler San Francisco area that doesn't need A/C) you get homes that put a huge load on grid and in many cases don't even hook up natural gas so they're electric from heating to cooling to cooking. Local governments don't give a fuck because all they see is tax revenue from new construction, it's not their problem to make sure there's power they assume that shit will be supplied elsewhere.

As to the electric car tax, that's more of a lack of using gas (again something they can tax directly) and less of a use electricity thing. PG&E is already going to bend it's region over the table soon though, making it's rates very unfriendly towards consumers. I can't speak of SoCal Edison, but I'm pretty sure they're PG&E's equally evil twin.

I have solar panels on my roof, in San Francisco, and relatively "small" amount of just over 3 kW worth of panels (16 total I think), and my bill is high in the winter, and in the summer it's actually a negative amount, so overall it helps me, that is until PG&E forces a Time of Use schedule on me that pays me less when I make the most.
 
Hawaii's issue has nothing to do with population. Their problem is with over generation during the day. You end up having to pay for generating power with your PV's.
 
Whether you wanted to build 10,000 square miles in one spot or 10,000 installations that are one square mile (which is still freaking huge for an infrastructure emplacement) it would still require the same amount of materials, the same (or more, likely more) amount of labor, and so on. While we'll continue to add renewables to the grid for good reasons, we won't be hitting this sort of goal any time soon. It's just far, far beyond current capacities. It's theoretically possible that some new battery tech could solve some of the scale issues, but I can't tell you how many "promising new technology revolutionizes batteries!" articles I've read through the years. Instead we're still trucking along with Li-On. Cost has gone down and reliability and density has gone up, but still fundamentally the same technology. If you want to assume that some on-the-cusp technology is going to fix our energy situation, you might as well bet that one (or more) of the current fission processes will finally pan out and we'll all be rocking along with (relatively) clean nuclear energy in the future.
 
Careful Elon, remember what they did to Nikola Tesla with his "crazy" ideas.
 
-Strelok- said:
$360/kWh.
Click to expand...
That is for a older version of a given type of vanadium flow battery from 2010 even though the paper itself was writting in 2015 and speculates out some costs to 2017. I'd also point out its using cost estimates for the vanadium flow battery from 2007 on top of that.

Eckroad S (2007)[URL='http://www.paredox.com/foswiki/pub/Trash/TrashAttachment/EPRI_-_Vanadium_Redox_Flow_Batteries_2007_.pdf'] Vanadium Redox Flow Batteries: An In-Depth Analysis. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA.
[/URL]
You have to be real careful linking to even a high quality paper because frequently the data they'll be using is out of date.

More modern commercialzed vanadium flow batteries are already down to $.05 per kWh: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesc...torage-breakthrough-weve-needed/#c74955b5bde8

They're already install grid scale vanadium flow batteries right now at certain locations. So you can't claim its some lab toy. And they're only going to get cheaper as time goes on. Costs are expected to drop another 60% or so by 2020 per kWh from what I've read.
 
mesyn191 said:
That is for a older version of a given type of vanadium flow battery from 2010 even though the paper itself was writting in 2015 and speculates out some costs to 2017. I'd also point out its using cost estimates for the vanadium flow battery from 2007 on top of that.

Eckroad S (2007) Vanadium Redox Flow Batteries: An In-Depth Analysis. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA.

You have to be real careful linking to even a high quality paper because frequently the data they'll be using is out of date.

More modern commercialzed vanadium flow batteries are already down to $.05 per kWh: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesc...torage-breakthrough-weve-needed/#c74955b5bde8

They're already install grid scale vanadium flow batteries right now at certain locations. So you can't claim its some lab toy. And they're only going to get cheaper as time goes on. Costs are expected to drop another 60% or so by 2020 per kWh from what I've read.
Click to expand...
WoW on the v flow batteries.
Edit Woe to WOW (auto correct!)
 
Last edited:
-Strelok- said:
Hawaii's issue has nothing to do with population. Their problem is with over generation during the day. You end up having to pay for generating power with your PV's.
Click to expand...
Now which island are you talking about? Because they're not all interconnected with a power grid. A quick google showed Oahu makes 10% of it's power by renewables, no way you can argue during the day they use 90% less power than at night. So if there are power issues there it goes beyond renewables.
 
sfsuphysics said:
Now which island are you talking about? Because they're not all interconnected with a power grid. A quick google showed Oahu makes 10% of it's power by renewables, no way you can argue during the day they use 90% less power than at night. So if there are power issues there it goes beyond renewables.
Click to expand...

https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...-and-why-the-same-won-t-happen-in-your-state/

Again, I don’t think you’re getting the point. Solar mostly generates power when the consumption is very low, leading to power being routed back to the utility. In the US that’s not an issue since most of the grid isn’t powered by solar and you can compensate, but you can’t in Hawaii since they have their own power grid. If you replace or start to roll out solar and everywhere in the U.S., WITHOUT BATTERIES, then you’ll run into the same issue. Yes you can just turn your solar panels off, but then what was the point of paying the premium in the first place?
 
sfsuphysics said:
Destroy is a rather strong word to use. After all current won't flow unless there is somewhere to go, a PV panel sitting in the sun not hooked up to any wiring doesn't heat up from excess current or anything, and much like one hooked up to the power grid if there's not adequate load on the grid then PV panels won't push current. But I agree, the time when you use power is critical. Musk does talk about batteries in his talk though, and he does talk about a transition process to being full solar. He in no way is suggesting "Yup just write me a blank check, I'll build a solar farm and you can stop using coal tomorrow"


I can't speak for Hawaii, but I can hazard a guess it's a lot like California in that they simply have too many fucking people with not enough infrastructure, plus Hawaii gets double whammied because they have an absolutely HUGE tourist population compared to their local population that probably has the AC in their rooms cranking on full from check in to check out, because by in far people are pussies.
Click to expand...

Actually on a state by state basis, Hawaii is near the bottom in terms of per capita electricity use. The reason being Hawaii's temperate climate doesn't require a lot of tonnage for heating/ac units. In fact a lot of homes in Hawaii still don't have AC. The problem comes from the fact they are an isolated island far from any mainlaind resources. So importing anything makes it butt expensive. Hell they don't even raise cattle because the grass lacks enough nutrients to keep them healthy. And they have to import feedstock.
 
WTB: Mister Fusion.

If I could power an EV on coffee grounds and beer cans, I'd rethink my decision to avoid them. Lol
 
Paladin21 said:
WTB: Mister Fusion.

If I could power an EV on coffee grounds and beer cans, I'd rethink my decision to avoid them. Lol
Click to expand...

...aaah come on dude, ev aint so bad. Its just a way to make a car go thats related to your refrigerator. Now when your electric bill comes in, you know why its so high. Cant be doing random trips to wally world anymore!
:)
 
DigitalGriffin said:
Actually on a state by state basis, Hawaii is near the bottom in terms of per capita electricity use. The reason being Hawaii's temperate climate doesn't require a lot of tonnage for heating/ac units. In fact a lot of homes in Hawaii still don't have AC.
Click to expand...
I dunno, I think the tourist population definitely puts a hit on their electrical grid, the last two times I was there what was supposed to be a nice day to go stroll around was one where I could hardly think straight from the noise of all the room AC units that were going off literally everywhere at the resort. And this was in Nov/Dec and Jan, when the high was like 82 or something. Basically tourists are pussies and blast that AC just to keep them comfortable at home.

But again, where is the problem? Solar panels don't keep dumping electricity to the grid unless there is a sufficient load on the grid to need it, if they did and they are in fact there with too much solar then the wires would melt and shit would start exploding by current being pushed out. I mean unless there's some sort of inductance load that is just storing power to overload capacity maybe, but basic physics current won't flow unless there is a load on it.

As an example, lets say you are totally off grid, and you're stupid and don't even have any battery storage. You put solar panels on your roof, your house doesn't catch fire and burn down when you're not there to use power. Current simply does not flow without a load present.
 
I like power threads.
Ever heard of a kind of fungi that is radiotrophic? Some grow on the walls of the Chernobyl sarcophagus and are capable of photosynthesis of gamma rays.
Got me thinking of pipe dreams straight from the Matrix like using ATP for energy storage.
 
DejaWiz said:
700-2200+ MWatts of generation capacity for a single nuclear plant. There is no other source that is cheaper and environmentally friendly in the long run, especially for the physical footprint.
Click to expand...

Sure, if everything works.

We've brought more solar capacity online in the past year than nuclear capacity in the past decade. Nuclear reactors are multi-billion dollar projects that often can't achive profitability under private ownership and governments are reluctant to invest in them for various reasons.
 
sfsuphysics said:
I dunno, I think the tourist population definitely puts a hit on their electrical grid, the last two times I was there what was supposed to be a nice day to go stroll around was one where I could hardly think straight from the noise of all the room AC units that were going off literally everywhere at the resort. And this was in Nov/Dec and Jan, when the high was like 82 or something. Basically tourists are pussies and blast that AC just to keep them comfortable at home.

But again, where is the problem? Solar panels don't keep dumping electricity to the grid unless there is a sufficient load on the grid to need it, if they did and they are in fact there with too much solar then the wires would melt and shit would start exploding by current being pushed out. I mean unless there's some sort of inductance load that is just storing power to overload capacity maybe, but basic physics current won't flow unless there is a load on it.

As an example, lets say you are totally off grid, and you're stupid and don't even have any battery storage. You put solar panels on your roof, your house doesn't catch fire and burn down when you're not there to use power. Current simply does not flow without a load present.
Click to expand...

This number includes crude oil consumption which factors in automobiles. It's one of those things that make you tilt your head and go, "Huh? Who'd a thunk it?" :)
https://www.eia.gov/state/rankings/


But I understand what you are saying.
 
DeathFromBelow said:
Sure, if everything works.

We've brought more solar capacity online in the past year than nuclear capacity in the past decade. Nuclear reactors are multi-billion dollar projects that often can't achive profitability under private ownership and governments are reluctant to invest in them for various reasons.
Click to expand...

Solar isn't multi-billion dollars?

A single 30MW junction of the SEGS in CA costs $90 million to build, and $3 million annually for maintenance and planned decommission costs. With only a 20 year life expectancy for each junction. What will a replacement jack shit capacity junction cost after 20 years on top of that $60 million running costs: $100 million...$120 million...$150 million?

Compare that to the total long term cost of nuke power with its realistic 60-80 year life expectancy per reactor for existing plants and 100+ years per reactor for new plants.

This becomes a no-brainer when considering JUST the amount of physical land required for solar and/or wind to even come close to attaining a fraction of the power output a nuke plant provides, as well as the backup source required to supplement wind or solar (favorability usually going to a coal or NG plant nearby).
 
DejaWiz said:
Solar isn't multi-billion dollars?

A single 30MW junction of the SEGS in CA costs $90 million to build, and $3 million annually for maintenance and planned decommission costs. With only a 20 year life expectancy for each junction. What will a replacement jack shit capacity junction cost after 20 years on top of that $60 million running costs: $100 million...$120 million...$150 million?
Click to expand...

You can toss around all the big scary numbers you want, nuclear power literally requires the financial and technological resources of a nation state to build (and clean up if something goes wrong). $9+ billion in construction costs per reactor. Solar deployment is outpacing nuclear more than 10:1 for purely economic reasons. In the real world private ownership of nuclear plants is not very profitable because of the tremendously high capital costs. The magical ultrasafe new reactors that were supposed to start a nuclear Renaissance took far longer than expected to manufacture and bankrupted Westinghouse. Turns out the original designs they marketed weren't really all that safe and were hopelessly optimistic about construction costs. Meanwhile solar tech keeps getting cheaper and can be exported all over the world.

Compare that to the total long term cost of nuke power with its realistic 60-80 year life expectancy per reactor for existing plants and 100+ years per reactor for new plants.

This becomes a no-brainer when considering JUST the amount of physical land required for solar and/or wind to even come close to attaining a fraction of the power output a nuke plant provides, as well as the backup source required to supplement wind or solar (favorability usually going to a coal or NG plant nearby).
Click to expand...

Land is not the issue. Think about the people and infrastructure involved with the fuel chain, construction, maintenance, operations, and disposal for a nuclear plant. The large, expensive workforce and university programs you need to make them. The security costs, risks, and the fact that some rather common disasters are simply beyond our capability to mitigate. Yes, the fuel is dirt cheap, but you're talking about construction costs in the range of an Apollo program for just a few new reactors. Without political support for a federally-run nuclear program like France it's just not going to happen.
 
Last edited:
DeathFromBelow said:
Without political support for a federally-run nuclear program like France it's just not going to happen.
Click to expand...

You've just hit on the real reason for high nuclear costs. Due to NIMBYs and irrational fear and hatred for nuke plants the red tape and massive pushback against nuclear is a massive upfront cost that few can afford. That sort of pushback and red tape starts at the federal level and goes all the way to the local level.

Nuclear isn't some sort of energy production panacea but it's sure as hell not the devil that so many people try to make it out to be. That said, there are quite a few people, especially in this thread, who seem to think that solar is some sort of panacea instead and it sure as hell isn't one. I dare one of the solar panacea people to show the requirements and costs associated with making a solar farm equal in output and ability (including the requirement to output necessary loads at night, cloudy days, etc) to an average nuke plant. Until your solar farms can at least match the 24/7/365 capabilities of nuke, coal, etc., it's nothing but a pipe dream.
 
SmokeRngs said:
You've just hit on the real reason for high nuclear costs. Due to NIMBYs and irrational fear and hatred for nuke plants the red tape and massive pushback against nuclear is a massive upfront cost that few can afford. That sort of pushback and red tape starts at the federal level and goes all the way to the local level.
Click to expand...

Not really. US nuclear output tripled in the time since Three Mile Island and there are lots of places that actually want nuclear stations. The problem is ultimately the capital costs. Other options are cheaper.

I dare one of the solar panacea people to show the requirements and costs associated with making a solar farm equal in output and ability (including the requirement to output necessary loads at night, cloudy days, etc) to an average nuke plant. Until your solar farms can at least match the 24/7/365 capabilities of nuke, coal, etc., it's nothing but a pipe dream.
Click to expand...

Current projects are in the range of ~25-45 square kilometers for 1GW of solar capacity for $1.5 billion, depending on methods used. If hydroelectric backup is available it would be $1-2 billion on top of that.
 
Last edited:
DeathFromBelow said:
Not really. US nuclear output tripled in the time since Three Mile Island and there are lots of places that actually want nuclear stations. The problem is ultimately the capital costs. Other options are cheaper.



Current projects are in the range of ~25-45 square kilometers for 1GW of solar capacity for $1.5 billion, depending on methods used. If hydroelectric backup is available it would be $1-2 billion on top of that.
Click to expand...

Backup plants using something other than solar don't count. That means the solar plant isn't capable of producing power for the times the sun isn't out and therefore isn't comparable. You're going to need storage of some sort which is capable of meeting the necessary loads when the sun isn't out, when the sun is covered by clouds, when it's raining, when the panels are covered by snow, when it's not the right time of year for maximum efficiency, etc, etc, etc. We need to know what the solution for this is and the cost if you want something comparable and actually useful.
 
SmokeRngs said:
Backup plants using something other than solar don't count.
Click to expand...

Why? You can use excess solar/wind capacity to pump water into a reservoir and release water through turbines when necessary. You could also generate hydrogen or ammonia for use as fuel, further offsetting the need for oil.

Like I said, it's all economics. Utilities and banks prefer renewables and fossil fuels over nuclear because the higher fuel/infrastructure costs are more manageable and less risky than investing $9+ billion in a decade long construction project.
 
DeathFromBelow said:
Why? You can use excess solar/wind capacity to pump water into a reservoir and release water through turbines when necessary. You could also generate hydrogen or ammonia for use as fuel, further offsetting the need for oil.

Like I said, it's all economics. Utilities and banks prefer renewables and fossil fuels over nuclear because the higher fuel/infrastructure costs are more manageable and less risky than investing $9+ billion in a decade long construction project.
Click to expand...

What is it going to cost to build a reservoir and keep it filled with water to do what you're talking about? Or how about batteries? How many batteries are going to be required to store the energy that way and how much is it going to cost?

Also, how is this going to work when you have rainstorms for a week? Are you going to store enough power to last what amounts to a week with little or no sun? What about during the middle of the summer when everyone is running their a/c on full keeping the houses cooled off? Will you even have enough spare capacity to meet the demand during the day as well as storing enough for nighttime AND enough to last the next few days if the sun isn't out? Also, I'll ask again about winter when there's a snowstorm that comes through dropping snow for three days. What about the lack of sun during that time as well as having the panels covered in snow even after the sun does finally come back out? I can tell you that around here it's a regular occurrence to have a week straight with no sun in the winter whether it snows or not. Hell, there are times when we'll go three weeks with maybe a few days of sun. How do plan on getting through that time especially since even when the sun does shine it's not very strong and the days are quite short?

Solar being a reliable source of power generation is a pipe dream. It's a niche power generation technique that only halfway works in specific locations. If you want any chance of using solar dependably, head out to space. At least there you don't have to worry about clouds, weather or seasons.
 
DeathFromBelow said:
Why? You can use excess solar/wind capacity to pump water into a reservoir and release water through turbines when necessary. You could also generate hydrogen or ammonia for use as fuel, further offsetting the need for oil.

Like I said, it's all economics. Utilities and banks prefer renewables and fossil fuels over nuclear because the higher fuel/infrastructure costs are more manageable and less risky than investing $9+ billion in a decade long construction project.
Click to expand...

There is not plentiful water where most solar plants of this scale can be built. Your ideas are fine for gigawatts, they are not fine for terawatts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top