Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

viper12a1a t1_j2o38vy wrote

650 windmills or 1 nuclear plant

18

mhornberger t1_j2qevxh wrote

What's the build time and cost per MWh for that new nuclear plant? Finland's new Olkiluoto-3 reactor might come online this year, and construction was started in 2005.

Wind turbines can coexist with crops, or with PV, and also be placed offshore. So it's not exactly like the land is excluded from other uses.

9

viper12a1a t1_j2qmx8x wrote

Ok, and what happens when it's not windy 100% of the time? Green energy still relies on external conditions to function, nuclear is efficient and consistent.

Why do you think France is an energy exporter while most offe other European countries are floundering without constant energy imports from Russia?

−8

mhornberger t1_j2qo3g4 wrote

You distribute generation, and also combine with solar and other methods. Storage will be needed, and is already incrementally being rolled out. Seasonal storage too is possible, with green ammonia and some other options.

>Why do you think France is an energy exporter

Except when they aren't. France too is facing possible energy cuts, largely due to unforeseen problems with their nuclear fleet. And I'm talking about new capacity, i.e. decisions made in the current day as to new generation to be built. And around the world solar and wind are far outpacing nuclear when it comes to new capacity.

And a good percentage of the world's nuclear fuel and fuel processing comes from Russia. Yes, you can build out new processing and mining capacity, but that takes time. If you cut out all fuel imports from Russia, what percentage of currently operating nuclear plants around the world will have to shut down? For how long? So dependency on Russian energy is a wider, more entrenched problem than merely gas pipelines.

4

viper12a1a t1_j2qoud9 wrote

The "unforeseen problems" are that they decided to take most of them down for maintenance at the same time because French.

The US has tons of resources if only we were allowed to actually go get them, but our government would rather not be energy independent and instead import all the energy we could be producing

−2

Mountainstreams t1_j2odcpz wrote

Not to mention the energy storage capacity required with windmills that isn’t required with modern nuclear power.

6

Frontrider t1_j2s8g6k wrote

Storage NEEDS to be added to the windmill costs. Combined with the other source of power you gonna use when it can't make it.

2

alegxab t1_j2qf8pa wrote

Wouldn't 650 windmills take up a similar space or less than a nuclear plant?

4

mhornberger t1_j2qfi70 wrote

Wind turbines can coexist with crops or other agriculture, or with PV, or be placed offshore. So it's not as if wind turbines preclude other uses for land.

We also have to consider build times and cost per MWh. Finland's Olkiluoto-3 may come online this year, and construction started in 2005.

5

viper12a1a t1_j2qmzv8 wrote

A nuclear plant is a few hundred acres, windmills have to be spread out over miles

2

fatamSC2 t1_j2ouob4 wrote

Basically. I have nothing against windmills per se, if people wanna build tons of em have at it. But they definitely are very inefficient, even their biggest supporters have to concede that. Even though solar is still very much a work in progress it's much, much better than wind.

2

notpaultx t1_j2p4ola wrote

I can concede that windmills are very inefficient relative to a nuclear power plant. But relative to a solar farm? There isnt a comparison there. Windmills are able to capture roughly 60% of the energy passing through them while solar panels at best convert 20 - 30% of the energy received. There are individual wind turbines that are generating up to 14 MW. Here's a neat link comparing renewable energy efficiencies you might enjoy.

​

https://www.borntoengineer.com/efficient-form-renewable-energy

6