Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2024 Poal.co

890

Nuclear wins.

Nuclear wins.

(post is archived)

[–] • 1 pt

Hydro is a bit of a misnomer on that list though. While the work and materials are a high, it's also the only one on the list that can last for a century or more. In theory, nuclear could also, depending on coolant pipe life, and what generation it is.

[–] • 1 pt

Yes. This chart doesn't take into account the longevity of the product, just how much material goes into the initial construction per watt of power generated.

[–] • 1 pt

Hydro is the only green energy on that list that can last more than 15 to 30 years (and that's optimistic hippy lying numbers).

[–] • 0 pt

Nuclear can do it also, provided it's not an old gen 2 design, or doesn't use caustic salts as the cooling medium

[–] • 1 pt

Nor does it cover costs.

A chart with cost per year per terrawatthour produced would probably have an even higher bar for solar and nuclear would likely not be visible at all.

[–] • 0 pt

Depends greatly on the gen of the nuclear plant. Gen 2's that only use 5% of fuel (Canadian designs not withstanding) have rather high costs due to fuel and downtime to refuel. Gen 3 is getting better, depending on the type. Gen 4, which normally use 80% or more of their fuel, would be dirt cheap to run.

[–] • 0 pt

I'd like to see such a chart.

[–] • 1 pt

I wouldn't have thought solar would take so much more than a dam holding back a million tons of water. It makes sense on reflection, given how sparse the energy production of solar is. You need a lot of ground covered to get the wattage.

[–] • 0 pt

That's the beauty of bulk power generation. You cover a plot with a nuke plant, it can generate a couple GW of power. You'd need 6-700 wind turbines to do that same thing.