It's really quite unfortunate that the promise was not delivered, mostly for political reasons. I hope that a new wave of reactors and the dire need for clean energy restarts the nuclear race.
The economics are not there. Solar + batteries are much cheaper per watt today and still improving. Even better, the solar can come online instantly and expand while US nuclear takes twenty years to start generating any energy.
> Solar + batteries are much cheaper per watt today and still improving.
Are we still going to make the same error over and over again? The day China says "stop" the price per watts will explode, just like when Russia and Iran said "stop".
Those aren't really equivalent. Iran is affecting the supply of oil, an input. China can affect the supply of solar panels, but they would have to do something pretty drastic to affect the supply of the input. Sunlight is going to keep reaching the solar panels that were set up prior to any kind of embargo.
Nuclear fuel can also be recycled. The point is, a solar panel produces a finite amount of energy over its lifetime, so it's not exactly comparable to a power plant in terms of energy independence.
It's not appropriate to think of the solar panel as a constant source of power, but the solar panel manufacturing plant. All of our nuclear reactors and fuel are produced in-country, whereas china has dominated solar panel manufacturing and can cut us off. We need to be proactive about manufacturing.
Nuclear fuel cannot be recycled. Nuclear fuel is consumed during use, that's why it's fuel.
A spent solar panel contains the exact materials needed to make a new solar panel. Chemical changes are cheaply reversible, so you can turn an old solar panel into a new one for less energy than it will produce during it's lifetime. A solar panel factory can operate indefinitely. (Or at least for as long as their is solar energy available.)
Nuclear fuel must be mined. Nuclear changes are reversible, but that requires the same amount of energy you would get back out. The Earth has a finite amount of nuclear fuel. (To be fair, there's a lot. The Earth contains enough fuel to last roughly the lifespan of the Sun.)
abirch · · focus · HN ↗
"It is not too much to expect that our children will enjoy in their homes electrical energy too cheap to meter,..." Lewis Strauss
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_cheap_to_meter#Origins" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_cheap_to_meter#Origins
Oddly enough my power bill was metered and big.
etatester · · focus · HN ↗
0cf8612b2e1e · · focus · HN ↗
toasty228 · · focus · HN ↗
Are we still going to make the same error over and over again? The day China says "stop" the price per watts will explode, just like when Russia and Iran said "stop".
edaemon · · focus · HN ↗
NoidFonsense · · focus · HN ↗
itishappy · · focus · HN ↗
NoidFonsense · · focus · HN ↗
It's not appropriate to think of the solar panel as a constant source of power, but the solar panel manufacturing plant. All of our nuclear reactors and fuel are produced in-country, whereas china has dominated solar panel manufacturing and can cut us off. We need to be proactive about manufacturing.
itishappy · · focus · HN ↗
A spent solar panel contains the exact materials needed to make a new solar panel. Chemical changes are cheaply reversible, so you can turn an old solar panel into a new one for less energy than it will produce during it's lifetime. A solar panel factory can operate indefinitely. (Or at least for as long as their is solar energy available.)
Nuclear fuel must be mined. Nuclear changes are reversible, but that requires the same amount of energy you would get back out. The Earth has a finite amount of nuclear fuel. (To be fair, there's a lot. The Earth contains enough fuel to last roughly the lifespan of the Sun.)
This supports your point even more!
NoidFonsense · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]