![(Construction) Materials required per unit of energy produced. [800x600 - 44KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/7rEohB.jpg){kind=link}
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.
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.
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).
Nuclear can do it also, provided it's not an old gen 2 design, or doesn't use caustic salts as the cooling medium
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.
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.
I'd like to see such a chart.
(post is archived)