Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Danne660 t1_iu0ow6g wrote

Reply to comment by PicardTangoAlpha in World facing 'first truly global energy crisis', report says by zsreport

No the economics for wind and solar is vastly superior to nuclear. The only thing nuclear has over them is it provides a stable base power.

7

PicardTangoAlpha t1_iu0pmw3 wrote

>wind and solar is vastly superior to nuclear.

Doubtful, and the hubristic language doesn't help. Solar panels decay, lose capacity every year. 3%? 5? In 20-25 years, they're useless and have to be replaced.

One wind turbine costs a million Euros and has hundreds of pounds of rare earth metals. Someone has to mine that. So far, the west has downloaded that environmental damage on to China, who has sacrificed their rivers to make sales to us.

Yes I know, downvote. Downvote your bitter little hearts because reality does not conform to your expectations.

−13

assail t1_iu13y8s wrote

Just got a quote for panels - 8% degradation over 25 year life span.

That means they'll be producing at 92% of their initial production.

Significantly less than you are implying.

10

NoPajamasNoService t1_iu2yn1w wrote

Yep. And they're great, unless you live somewhere like Minnesota where you don't get shit for sun half the year. We do have wind like crazy here in the great plains but not very many wind turbines. There's like 3 where I live that don't seem to work and that's literally it within a 100 mile radius. Minnesota is pretty progressive too so I wouldn't think it's an issue outside of wind turbines being vastly inferior.

0

Danne660 t1_iu0vfov wrote

If you are worried about you solar becoming useless after 25 years then just replace them every 10 years. It is still cheaper then nuclear even if you replace it that often.

And bitch more about downvotes just because reality don't conform to your will.

9

PicardTangoAlpha t1_iu0w2kd wrote

So.......correct or no? Is this your way of agreeing?

−12

TrainOfThought6 t1_iu1hfbm wrote

Not correct. As the other fellow said and you're conveniently ignoring, you're grossly overestimating the degradation. We're regularly designing utility scale solar with a 35 year life.

Energy storage is trickier, as degradation is much more pronounced, but there are so many levers you can pull to make money off a battery that it still works.

12

PicardTangoAlpha t1_iu1u3r3 wrote

I said 25 years, you said 35. That's not grossly overestimating the degradation.

And when they're useless, they're not recyclable. Glass doped with rare earth metals. How the hell do you recycle this?

−2

TrainOfThought6 t1_iu4m1by wrote

You said they degrade at 3-5% per year, when it's more like 8-10% over the full 25 years. Yes that's a huge difference.

You realize designing for a 25 year life does not mean we aim for the panels to hit zero output at the end, right?

2

Draker-X t1_iu2n40k wrote

Wind and solar don't create waste that will be injuring and killing living things on this planet long after humanity is gone from the Earth.

Also, we've seen the fun that nuclear power plants be when A. under the control of an incompetent, corrupt government or B. in a war zone (which I don:t believe there are going to be a shortage of on this planet anytime soon).

2

PicardTangoAlpha t1_iu37ajt wrote

China has sacrificed its environmental quality to satisfy Western demand for the rare earth metals, lithium and cobalt needed to drive tie so called green energy revolution. This us refereed to as “greenwishing” and is pure hypocrisy.

0