Comment by toomuchtodo | Hacker News Reader

Comment by toomuchtodo | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I discussed this, at length, a week or two ago on HN. Nuclear power, while useful for military or space applications, can no longer compete on price for commercial electric generation.

"Solar is already cheaper than utility power in 36 states [1], it estimated to reach grid parity in all 50 states next year [2], and US solar generation capacity surging to almost 40GW by the end of 2016 [3]"

[1] http://news.investors.com/technology/061515-757277-tesla-see...

[2] http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/deutsche-bank-sees-50-us-sta...

[3] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-26/solar-as-f...

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9728767

"Nuclear power plants take 10+ years to commission (Watts Bar in TN took nearly 36 years to complete), $1 billion USD to start (frequently approaching $2-4 billion), and have no permanent waste storage. Newer reactor designs that can burn up waste products instead of a once-through system haven't been tested in over 60 years (since first tested at Oak Ridge during the Manhattan Project in the late 50s; Thorium in a breeder blanket configuration)."

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9728721

"> Yes, solar is cheaper than the retail with massive subsidies

The numbers I quote are without subsidies. Wind is already cheaper than nuclear without subsidies, even taking into account nuclear power plants receive enormous liability waivers that wind doesn't require (they're only liable for the first $13 billion USD in damages from an accident; the US government picks up the rest).

> So the rest of us are subsidizing solar owners through income taxes (federal) and the rates we pay for electricity.

And the rest of us our subsidizing cheap coal by not paying for the damage it does through carbon dioxide and radioactive material release. Your point?"

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9728901

How about the space required to generate a given amount of power? How big does a wind farm have to be to equal a typical nuclear plant?

Wind farm would have to be about 30 times bigger than area taken by nuclear plant. Solar farm -- about 15 times [1]. Renewables definitely take more land. But there's no shortage of land in most places in the world. Shortage of arable land? Sure. But not land in general. E.g. all US energy demand could be met by covering a small fraction of Arizona deserts with solar panels. Solar and wind could also be located offshore.

[1] http://wilderness.org/sites/default/files/legacy/Website-Lan...

And you can still use the arable land under a wind farm.

Solar farms in temperate regions can be mounted higher to let animals graze below them, assuming you don't stick them on an existing roof.

They'll still reduce the amount of sunlight plants under them receive. Not sure the side-effects are negligible.

People will argue with you, "What about transmission losses?"

Transmission losses are ~6%. Build more renewables.

If marginal land available for wind and solar are in great supply, why are we using space consumed as a comparison point?

Should we not be comparing capital costs, cost per kwh, fuel costs, waste costs, and dispatchability? And not "but how much space does it use"?

> why are we using space consumed as a comparison point?

Mostly, I asked out of curiosity. But now that you mention it, I think there is value in comparing space requirements. If you need a vast amount of space, you may have to build further away, perhaps in areas where there isn't already infrastructure to support a major power station (you need roads, utilities, level ground, and so on). That adds to the cost.

edit: Not to mention if you move further out, you have more miles of wire to transport the energy. That's more opportunities for something to damage a line and more time and money spent finding and repairing the issue.

> Should we not be comparing capital costs, cost per kwh, fuel costs, waste costs, and dispatchability? And not "but how much space does it use"?

Let's not get snippy and dismissive, I simply asked a question.

My apologies, my response was not meant to have an adversarial tone.

No worries I kind of struck back at you. I apologize for that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com