I like nuclear. I have always liked nuclear. However: it's always sunny somewhere on Earth, and the total amount of solar energy delivered to us by nature's finest fusion reactor is something like 170TW.
If you will indulge me the geopolitical fantasy of putting a suitable planetary-scale transmission system in place, is there any particular reason we couldn't switch to all-solar?
You also are unlikely to have enough space and enough raw materials to construct solar panels that can provide the entire earth's energy needs all-day round, given the huge transmission losses.
Furthermore, solar panels have a very short life span - barely 10 years for a decent yield - which means that you would have to constantly mine hevay metals to build new solar panels at a rapid pace just to maintain this setup.
It's perhaps a possibility for a distant future, but definitely not something that can be contemplated as a serious solution to the 0-emissions world that we need to hit in the next 30 years.
Losses for 800kV HVDC systems are typically documented at ~3.5%/1000km or ~5%/2000km[0], and state-of-the-art 1.1MV systems have losses of ~1.5%/1000km[1][2]. Lower voltage systems have higher losses but I’m not sure why a lower-voltage system or AC system would be used in a project like this.
I can’t find any information about increased losses in submarine cables at all; where is that information from, and what is the mechanism that causes that added loss?
For solar panels, as far as I can tell, capacity loss occurs at a rate of ~0.3-1% per year depending upon the type of panel, with a median of 0.5%[3]. More modern panels have lower losses than older panels, presumably due to manufacturing improvements. So, after 10 years, you’re talking about something that will produce—on average—5% less power than it did when it was brand new. That’s not something that is broken and needs to be replaced the way you seem to be suggesting.
[0] https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/J...
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29232512
Actual deaths from solar power are higher than actual deaths from nuclear energy, per GW delivered. Solar death is mostly from falling from high places, but so what? Death is death.
There's a conversation to have about the long tail but I'll probably start calling people cowards at some point so lets not.
This is not a serious argument. Large scale solar farms are hardly more than 6 feet off the ground and would essentially eliminate this risk. I expect the number of deaths and decrease in quality of life attributable to fossil fuels is far far higher to speak nothing of Climate risks in general.
I am personally doubtful of your comments around deaths being more frequent. Statistics around the specific cause of death would also be appreciated.
Im not sure if conspiracy is the right word. The special interest groups bullshitting everyone are not necessarily coordinating. Is religion also a conspiracy?
Never mind.
I believe that I'd feel safer with nuclear if they paid for their own damn insurance and raised the liability cap to "unlimited" but apparently they dont feel its safe enough just yet to raise their financial exposure. What if fukushima happened again? Dealing with that was expensive!
Perhaps you could explain why they cant volunteer to shoulder their own risks if theyre so safe?
In SPITE of free insurance they still need lavish taxpayer subsidies to be financially viable while wind and solar dont.
...including a policy to pay the cost of decommissioning.
There isn't a production nuclear power plant in the world that has ever been fully decommissioned. The earliest production plants in the UK have been taken out of service, but decommissioning (so the land they were built on can be re-used) is expected to take the rest of this century.
In Chernobyl around 50 people died as direct consequence of the disaster. As far as I know there's no studies showing increased risk of cancer in the population that lived in and around Chernobyl at the time. If Chernobyl showed us one thing it is that radiation is not as dangerous as we believed.
I think it's worth assuming some reduction in life expectancy for some people, but notably the estimates of lost years of life have dropped year by year, and will likely end up being negligible.
I've said it before: we could have a Chernobyl every year, and it'd still be worth it (reducing deaths) if it got us off coal sooner...
However, all that was completely drowned by a collapse of life expectancy resulting from the chaos of the 90s. We're horrified at a few tens of extra cancers, but 100M men losing 10-15 years of their life due to socio-economic circumstances doesn't raise anyone's eyebrow
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_di...
Indulging such imagination, which is valuable, one particular reason, as you probably realize, could be resource limits when it comes to actually scaling up solar generation and transmission facilities.
Plus, electrification of transportation, if beyond electrified rail, still calls for storage. Here's an analysis of material inputs, focussing on vehicle electrification:
https://www.minersoc.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/3ICM-Mic...
Just how much would such infrastructure cost? How much resources would we have to mine to facilitate such a massive overhaul to a non-centralized grid?
I think when renewables are presented as the only answer it is underestimated how much it would cost in investment in storage and the grid, to a point that I feel nuclear is a fine solution for base-load.
I have no numbers though so I cannot back this up or anything.
As if the idea of getting all our energy from the Sun is an original thought.
How do we accomplish this?
"I don't know, I am just the idea man. You do all the engineering for my idea and we will split the profit 50/50!"
We could, maybe, import all that energy from solar farms in North Africa, but (a) that requires a willing counterparty, and (b) is that actually technically feasible? As in, sign here and pay, we build it for you.
It is, see the Desertec initiative.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertec
It would be just a huge investment, which is why it did not get very far, so far.
Also there is indeed the political factor. North africa is not so stable, but of course willing for investment.
But even with solar in southern europe alone, you would get quite far, combined with wind and hydro. And if you have excess in summer, you could store that in various ways for the winter.
In other words, I believe we do need huge investments into the grid now, connecting europes south and north. And then companys can build more of all kinds of solar and wind farms.
The link you provided seems to just mention plans and studies, not building subsea electricity cables. Also says
> The project failed twice due to the problem of transportation and cost-inefficiency.
And if you have a european wide grid (high voltage, direct current) you would not need to store for months, because the sun is still shining in the south and wind is blowing somewhere. You only would need to store for the rare situations of little wind and little sun.
It will be a mix either way, I am not against nuclear as base load, or backup. But they are expensive, too.
Well then, when you have lots of solar and wind fields, then it doesn't matter too much, if one gets destroyed. But even those you can defend, even with your own troops, by making adequate contracts.
On the other hand, if you have to rely on nuclear - then a potentiell enemy only needs to target those and you are screwed in many ways. It would be not too hard, for a dedicated commando to blow up, or at least render useless, a nuclear reactor with enough preparation.
But when you are only thinking in military terms: the hard parts to defend with dessert power are the power cabels. But they are also an essential part of nuclear plants and you cannot defend the whole grid.
Your point about cabling is equally valid.
Your point about nuclear less so. I'm more comparing locally generated power, where your power generation can be covered by your own defences, with remotely generated power, which can't.
Making a deal with the moroccean government, would include their troops defending the investment, or could be modified to include own troops.
But like I also said above, the south of europe has plenty of sun, too.
Storage only for nights, is very managable.
>geopolitical fantasy of putting a suitable planetary-scale transmission system in place
That combined with geo-politics, war, big oil etc.
Solar generation of power across countries will pretty much go one way. The most obvious and likely one is from North Africa to Europe. If the North African states decide to turn off the power to Europe they can. This is why geo-politically you cannot rely on this as a 100% solution. It can add to a solution, but it is not a good idea to let another country hang a sword over your head like that. (Or more precisely to hang the sword there yourself)
Besides the fact that you can't just "make" internet from a coal/petrol/etc generator somewhere nearby.
Imagine a ship's anchor damaging a cable carrying a couple megawatts of power (this happens frequently to the undersea fibre optic cables, and even those are a nightmare to repair).